Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BELL'S BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION

Mr. Secretary Lang: presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Bell's Bridge; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday 28 June [Bill 143.]

ACCOMMODATION LEVEL CROSSINGS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 29 June.

QUEEN MARY AND WESTFIELD COLLEGE BILL (By Order)

(Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Thursday 29 June.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Monday 26 June at Seven o'clock.

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES (No. 2) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for consideration read.

To be considered on Thursday 29 June.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Fire Authorities

Mr. O'Hara: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the reduction in services that fire authorities will have to make as a result of expenditure shortfalls. [28397]

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Representations have been received from a number of hon. Members and others. My approval is required under section 19 of the Fire Services Act 1947 when any reduction in the number of fire stations, fire appliances or firefighting posts in a brigade is proposed.

Mr. O'Hara: Is the Home Secretary aware that, according to figures provided by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, our fire services face a

funding shortfall of £90 million? The situation is so serious not only in my area of Merseyside but in other parts of the country that at least one authority, North Yorkshire, is considering charging motorists for attending car crashes—the so-called "cash as you crash" plan. When will the Home Secretary finally face up to the serious in-built underfunding of a vital area of our emergency services?

Mr. Howard: It is all very well for Labour Back Benchers to complain about underfunding, but the shadow Chancellor and the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury keep telling everyone that the Labour party will not spend any more money. Only one fire authority—South Yorkshire—sought a redetermination of its capping limit, and the application was successful.

Mr. John Greenway: Notwithstanding what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, is he aware of the grave concern in places such as Filey and Scarborough about the reductions in fire cover that have had to be made because the standard spending assessments for big shire counties such as North Yorkshire are inadequate? May we now have a thorough review of the Home Office fire standard and the standard spending assessments that should go with it so that the big rural areas get the fire cover that they need?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend will know that the standard spending assessment formula is being reviewed. Of course we shall take the concerns of North Yorkshire and others into account in that context. However, I see no reason why the nationally recommended minimum standards of fire cover cannot be maintained throughout the country.

Mr. Beith: What is the logic of a system under which the Home Secretary tells fire authorities what standard of cover they must maintain but the Department of the Environment then tells them that because of their SSAs or capping they cannot spend the amount necessary to achieve that level of cover? That happened in Northumberland and Shropshire, and it is happening in North Yorkshire. Are not the public, who are thus at greater risk, the sufferers of all that?

Mr. Howard: The right hon. Gentleman totally misrepresents the facts. It is the duty of every authority to provide fire cover in accordance with national minimum standards. I have made that clear time and again. Authorities that are not single-service authorities must assess the priorities for their budgets so that cover is provided. If single-service authorities were capped they had the opportunity to make an application for redetermination of the cap. As I have said, only one fire authority made such an application, and that was successful.

Sir Donald Thompson: May I make a special plea for the fire authority in my constituency, which has unusual topographical and geographical features? Will my right hon. and learned Friend reconsider my plea?

Mr. Howard: The special features of my hon. Friend's constituency—they are indeed special, and he has drawn them to the attention of every local government Minister for the past 10 years—will be carefully taken into account in the review of the SSA.

Electoral Registration

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to introduce a rolling electoral registration system; and if he will make a statement. [28398]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Nicholas Baker): The report of our post-election review concluded that more work was needed before a decision could be taken on a rolling register. Ministers are considering the report.

Mr. Barnes: Is not the current electoral registration system pathetic? An Office of Population Censuses and Surveys report showed that between 3 million and 4 million people are missing from electoral registers. People register in October, but the register—which lasts for a full year—does not come out until February and is 16 months out of date by the time it is completed. Does the Minister realise that the annual death rate among over-18s is 630,000, which means that about 800,000 names—some 2 per cent. of the electorate—should not be on the registers? It is disturbing for people to find that the names of their loved ones are still on electoral registers and that they are receiving electoral communications. Would not a rolling register be the answer to the problem?

Mr. Baker: I should like to take the opportunity to correct some of the figures that the hon. Gentleman has given. There is not enough information to give a wholly reliable and accurate figure, as the hon. Gentleman found out from correspondence with my office, but according to the best figures available there were 42.624 million names on electoral registers in 1994, compared with an estimated resident population of 44.780 million—a difference of 2.156 million. The working party has looked at a rolling register and while it certainly concluded that it might result in a more up-to-date register, it decided that it would not improve registration. We are considering a detailed analysis of a complex matter, but experience in Australia, which has a rolling register, suggests that house-to-house checks are still necessary. That experience hardly suggests that a rolling register is as accurate as the hon. Gentleman seems to think.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real scandal of electoral registration was the campaign organised by certain hon. Members to discourage people from registering and to encourage them to become tax dodgers?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is quite right. We spend a great deal of money on advertising the desirability of registering, and I am glad to have my hon. Friend's support for that campaign.

Mr. Trimble: Does not the issue require more urgent attention? In addition to the problems mentioned by the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes), is there not an increasing problem in certain areas of England with false registration and other forms of electoral fraud? Does not that stem from the fact that registration officers and party workers who are dealing with extended families with similar names have difficulty in identifying who is who? Must not that issue be tackled?

Could it not be tackled and cured by the adoption of identity cards—an additional reason for such cards that does not appear in the Home Office consultation paper?

Mr. Baker: We are certainly looking at all the ways of improving registration, although not at the particular example mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. According to the OPCS figures to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes) referred, the number of people registering to vote in England and Wales rose in 1995 by 88,000 to a total of 38.765 million. I am pleased to say that—no doubt as a result of the hon. Gentleman's advocacy—electoral registration in Derbyshire, North-East rose by 0.5 per cent., more than the national average.

Prison Searches

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to prevent drugs from entering prisons and to ensure prisoners are properly searched. [28399]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): A number of measures are in place to ensure that we take effective action to prevent drugs from entering prisons. These include the greater use of sniffer dogs, closed circuit television in visits areas, the introduction of closed visits for people who are found to be involved in drug taking or handling in prison and the introduction of mandatory testing.

Mr. Field: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the exceptional case in one of the prisons on the Isle of Wight where a prisoner had drugs secreted up his backside. As the British Medical Association does not allow doctors to perform internal searches of prisoners, he was not able to be arrested and he got the drugs into the prison. Is he further aware that prisoners shuffle their chairs over to the other side of the table during open visits to partake in intimate embraces with their visitors, during which drugs are passed? Why cannot the chairs be nailed to the floor? Why should not closed visits be the norm and open visits be earned as a privilege?
Can my right hon. Friend explain why Judge Tumim continues to berate routine searching for drugs yet criticises the presence of drugs in prisons?

Mr. Forsyth: The judge must answer for himself on those matters. My hon. Friend wrote to me in, I think, November about the case that he mentioned in his question. I have been reviewing the policy on internal searches when drugs are believed to be concealed. We shall shortly consult on how we might strengthen the law in that regard.
My hon. Friend asks about closed visits. I can go some way towards meeting his request in so far as closed visits will apply where prisoners are suspected of taking drugs or where visitors have brought drugs in for prisoners.
My hon. Friend asked about visiting areas and I agree that we need to take further steps to ensure that visits are not used for any purpose other than those for which they are intended. The Director General of the Prison Service will see that surveillance and the strict enforcement of rules are carried out.

Mr. George Howarth: Is the Minister aware that Judge Tumim has reported that, for example, about 80 per cent.


of inmates in Styal prison were routinely involved in the taking of illegal drugs? What have been the results so far from the introduction of mandatory drug testing in prisons? He has already mentioned some ideas, but what further measures will he consider to try to stem this tide of illegal drugs in our prisons?

Mr. Forsyth: Of course I am aware of the comments about Styal prison. Mandatory testing, which is an important part of the fight against drugs, has been successfully introduced on the basis of a rolling programme. Evidence shows that it is not only identifying drug misuse but that it is welcomed by a number of prisoners who see it as a step forward. Mandatory testing will enable us to identify drug misuse and tackle the sources of drugs. It will also enable us to ensure that proper systems of treatment are in place. Prisoners will be given treatment and support to get them off drugs so that when they leave prison they do not continue to take them, reoffend and find themselves returning to prison.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we welcome his latest proposals to stop personal contact between prisoners and visitors in top security prisons and in prisons where drug offences have been suspected? It has been a source of puzzlement to many of us over the past few years why there is not a glass partition between visitors and prisoners sentenced for more serious cases. For some reason there has been reluctance to have such a partition. Will he take on board the fact that most people would like such a restriction to be imposed on prisoners?

Mr. Forsyth: As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) said, we have introduced closed visits for exceptional risk category A prisoners as a matter of course. We have said that we shall introduce closed visits where prisoners have been found to be abusing visits and are involved in drug taking or the handling of drugs. I do not think that it would be right to introduce closed visits for all prisoners. Where prisoners are found to be involved in illegal practices, closed visits are justified, but the purpose of prison is to punish the prisoner, not families, and it is appropriate that families should be able to visit prisoners in an open situation—provided the rules are observed.

Juvenile Offending

Mr. Peter Bottomley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the offending rate and the detection rate of crime by 16-year-old boys and girls currently and 10 years ago. [28401]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): For boys aged 16, the offender rate has fallen from 10,900 per 100,000 in 1984 to 9,300 in 1993. For girls aged 16, it has risen from 1,600 per 100,000 to 2,200 in 1993.
I am afraid that it is not possible to measure detection rates for different age groups.

Mr. Bottomley: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on joining the Privy Council and you, Madam Speaker, on your honorary doctorate. Monitoring the offending rate for different age groups is as important in respect of general crime as it was in the successful attack on changing the culture of drink driving. If we seriously want

to reduce the number of victims, we have to stop the flow of 1,000 or 2,000 people a week who, for the first time, commit serious crimes.

Mr. Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. He has tremendous knowledge of and experience in dealing with young people through the Church of England Children's Society, where he was a leading expert. He is absolutely correct about the careful monitoring of young offenders and potential young offenders. I want to monitor not only 16-year-olds but those considerably younger who begin to go astray for the first time. We intend to see what measures we can take to keep them on the strait and narrow. If they wander off it, we shall need an appropriate range of penalties rising progressively up the scale.

Mr. Tipping: The Minister will be aware that a disproportionate amount of crime is committed by the persistent young offender. What new initiatives will he take to try to resolve that problem?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. A disproportionate amount of crime is committed by a tiny number of young people. We shall take the measures that his party has consistently voted against in the past two years. Despite the Labour party voting against the powers to deal with that hard group of young offenders, the powers are on the statute book and we shall introduce them as soon as possible.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there would be less crime among 16-year-olds if school discipline were more effective? School discipline would be more effective if moderate corporal punishment were restored to the heads and staff of schools as a proper sanction against under-16s who misbehave? Would that not stop many of them appearing before the courts?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend knows that children spend considerably more time under the influence of others rather than school teachers. Their time in the evenings and at weekends in the family home is even more important than the time they spend in school. Of course, teachers have responsibility but I would not put the sole responsibility for bringing up properly educated, well-disciplined children on teachers alone. Others in society have a responsibility: first and foremost, parents.

Prison Service (Staff Morale)

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the current level of staff morale within the prison service. [28402]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: A survey carried out in 1994 showed that two thirds of prison staff were either satisfied or very satisfied with their job.

Mr. MacShane: Is the Minister aware that, as the summer is becoming hot, the same survey showed that nine out of 10 prison staff said that they felt that Prison Service management did not have enough regard for those who have face-to-face dealings with prisoners, which suggests that morale is rather low? Can he give an assurance that if there is any incident later this summer, Ministers will accept their responsibility instead of, as in the past, passing the buck to anyone else down the line?

Mr. Forsyth: I am slightly astonished that the hon. Gentleman should seek to link any incident with how


Ministers should or should not take responsibility. Is he seriously trying to send out a message that if people riot in prisons, it will somehow affect our attitudes? If he is, that would he very irresponsible. Whatever happens in the Prison Service, we will follow the established procedure, which is to establish the facts and hold those responsible to account. If he is concerned about morale in the Prison Service, would not it be better if he and his colleagues gave the service a little credit for the good work that it does every day of the week in looking after 51,000 of the most difficult people in the country?

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of some prison officers' concern about the notice that they have to give prisoners before searching their cells for drugs? Why is that notice needed?

Mr. Forsyth: There is no requirement for notice to be given, and I share my hon. Friend's consternation when it is. However, it is a matter for governors, who are responsible for the conduct of prisons, and some governors have sometimes given notice. I share with my hon. Friend and, I believe, most hon. Members, a determination to ensure that effective drug searches are carried out in our prisons. We are reviewing the amount of property that prisoners are allowed in their cells so that more effective searches can be carried out—and quickly.

Criminal Compensation

Ms Estelle Morris: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding the current situation in respect of compensation for victims of violent crime. [28403]

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement regarding reductions in compensation to victims of the most violent crimes. [28406]

Mr. Maclean: We are currently putting through Parliament a Bill that proposes an enhanced tariff scheme. It envisages compensation payable to victims rising from £175 million to £260 million over the next five years. The scheme will continue to be the most generous in the world.

Ms Morris: The Minister's answer bears no relation to reality. The truth is that the Government are cutting compensation to the victims of crime. Does he not understand that he is sending a message to victims of crime that they have a Government who do not care about them, when he should be sending the message that they have a Government who are intent on cracking down on crime and protecting them from violent crime?

Mr. Maclean: The reality is that, once again, a member of the Labour party is saying that she wants to spend more money, whereas the shadow Chancellor is saying that Labour will not do so. Labour has not spelt out clearly how much it will spend on the victims of crime whereas we have spelt out in the Bill how much we shall spend.
In 1978, the cost of compensation was £10 million; in 1987, it was £52 million; and last year we spent £165 million on the victims of crime. Over the next few years, we shall increase the amount given to victims of crime to £175 million. We estimate that, in future years, we shall spend £190 million, £205 million, £240 million and £260

million. We have spelt out the increases; why will not the Opposition spell out clearly what they intend to do? It is just another uncosted manifesto pledge.

Mr. Winnick: Was not the Leader of the House right when he wrote to warn the Prime Minister in March that the Government's intention to reduce compensation to the victims of serious crime would put the Government on the wrong side of the argument? Is not it typical of the Government that, although crime has risen substantially in the past 16 years—many parts of the country are crime ridden—they are punishing financially the victims of serious crime? It is no wonder that they are held in such contempt across the country.

Mr. Maclean: Once again, the hon. Gentleman had written his little supplementary question before he heard the figures, but we have come to expect that from him. I read out how much we project will be spent on the victims of crime over the next few years, and it is an unprecedented amount. The Labour party is keen to quote everything European, so why does it not mention the fact that what we alone will spend on the victims of crime will be more than every other country in Europe put together—and more even than the mighty United States of America?

Mrs. Gorman: Does not Britain have a support system for victims of violent crime—with whom, of course, we all have the greatest sympathy—which includes social services, counselling and medical services to ensure that a victim of crime, even without any form of compensation, has the best care under the welfare state? Is not it important that we avoid the route taken in the United States where the victim of almost anything—from an exploding Coca-Cola can to a real crime—expects to be rewarded financially for the awful things that he has been through?

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right to mention the United States. The amount of compensation paid to victims of crime in this country is higher than the total paid in the United States, which has a much higher population and a much worse violent crime rate. We have a proud story of success in looking after victims of crime.
My hon. Friend is also right to draw attention to the fact that all the other branches and organs of the state provide support. She might have mentioned Victim Support, which has received unprecedented support from the Government as a voluntary organisation, with huge percentage increases each year since it was set up.

Mr. Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend agree that another aspect of compensation to victims of crime is the punishment that is given to those who have committed the crime? Has not the Labour party consistently opposed the Government's legislation to increase punishment? Is not the Labour party soft on crime and even softer on punishment?

Mr. Maclean: I know that the Labour party wants to pretend that it is tough on crime, but we know its track record. We know that it voted against the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice Act 1988, giving the Attorney-General a power to appeal against over-lenient sentences, and the Criminal Justice Act 1991. In the light of that record of voting against every single measure that makes a difference in bearing down on crime, new


Labour, during the passage of the most recent Criminal Justice Act, was able to abstain on Second Reading and Third Reading.

Mr. Michael: The public know full well that it is the Conservative Government who have presided over the doubling of crime, and it is the Conservative Government who have voted down every constructive approach by the Opposition to tackle guns, to tackle crime and to nip things in the bud with young offenders. The public know that it is the Government who want to cut the cash for victims, whereas the Opposition have told Ministers, "If you do not cut the cash available for the victims of crime, we will not cut the cash available for the victims of crime." Will the Minister confess that, over the next five years, he will cut the cash for victims of crime by £700 million?

Mr. Maclean: The whole House enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's outburst—not even his hon. Friends could keep a straight face as he was speaking. The Labour party has voted against every criminal justice measure that we have taken, which has increased the penalties for crime. That is the measure of the hon. Gentleman, who now protests that he cares about crime. We do not need any form of weasel words—"If you don't cut the cash, neither will we". We have put in the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill the extra money that we are giving victims. Why will not the Labour party spell out its bottom line? It is because its shadow Chancellor has said, "No costed promises in the manifesto; do not tell the public what it will cost."

Convicted Prisoners

Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy regarding the provision and use of telephones by convicted prisoners serving their sentence. [28404]

Mr. Michael Forsyth: Official telephones are available for urgent or compassionate reasons only and, as a privilege, prisoners have access to a cardphone.

Mr. Robathan: May I congratulate you, Madam Speaker, on your honorary doctorate and welcome my right hon. Friend's answer. Is he aware of the great unhappiness that is caused to the families of victims of crime and, indeed, of murderers such as Winston Silcott and others in Parkhurst, who are allowed to give interviews on the media? Does he agree that the decent people of the country are amazed and appalled to discover that prisoners can telephone the newspapers and the other media? Does he further agree that the use of a telephone is a privilege, which should be earned, and should be taken away when it is abused?

Mr. Forsyth: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has said. The rules have been changed recently to prevent prisoners from telephoning the media in the way that my hon. Friend has described. The most recent example was prisoner Rose who escaped from Parkhurst prison and then rang up "The World at One" and gave an account of how he had escaped. I was surprised by that incident because the BBC production guidelines make it clear that criminals should not be given an opportunity to glamorise their crimes or to give details of crimes that

could be copied. It is clearly a matter for the governors of the BBC and I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that it is time that they put their house in order.

Mr. Tony Banks: It makes a change to listen to prisoners rather than Conservative Members on "The World at One". Can the Minister say how many prisoners have access to mobile telephones? Is it not a fact that a number of prisoners are using mobile phones to order drugs?

Mr. Forsyth: No prisoner should have access to a mobile telephone, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the measures that have been taken to reduce the amount of property that prisoners can possess and to improve searching for items of that kind. As for prisoners, I should have thought that with the Opposition Front Bench it is the hon. Gentleman who is the prisoner these days.

Crime

Mr. Peter Ainsworth: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding recorded crime in 1994; and if he will make a statement. [28405]

Mr. Howard: I have received a number of representations on recorded crime. Although the level is still far too high, the reduction in the past two years has been the biggest for 40 years and I congratulate the police on their success in that achievement.

Mr. Ainsworth: My right hon. and learned Friend will know that burglary is one of the most distressing crimes. Is he aware that last year the number of burglaries in Surrey fell by 21 per cent? Will he join me in paying tribute not only to the police but also to the often unsung heroes on the crime prevention panels who do so much good in the fight against crime?

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I am grateful to him for emphasising the importance of crime prevention panels. The truth is that we shall make the greatest progress in the fight against crime when we have a real partnership between the police and the public. The strides that have been made in coping with crime across the country, particularly in Surrey, demonstrate exactly what can be done.

Mr. Sheerman: How reliable are the crime statistics? Is it not a fact that in most constituencies victims of burglary are so sick of being burgled that they do not even bother to report it? The fact is that crime is spiralling and burglary is spiralling, but people do not bother to report it to the police.

Mr. Howard: It is a remarkable fact that when recorded crime was rising we did not hear any complaints from Labour Members about the reliability of the figures, but now that it is falling—as a result of effective work by the police—the Opposition are keen to rubbish the figures at any and every opportunity. If the hon. Gentleman does not think that the figures in his area are reliable, I suggest that he take up the matter with his chief constable.

Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment ways in which the building


regulations could be changed to ensure that new houses and flats are built in such a way as to be as secure as possible against burglary?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have made considerable progress in recent years in incorporating crime prevention features in building design. I dare say that more than be done. As my hon. Friend suggests, I will take the matter up with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Straw: Does the Secretary of State recognise that in 1994 the crime rate was still double what it was when Labour left office in 1979? A key reason for the doubling of crime has been the huge increase in the amount of harassment and intimidation of local communities by anti-social criminal neighbours. In view of that fact, will the Secretary of State recognise the total inadequacy of current provision? Instead of arguing complacently that there is no need for changes in the law of the kind that Labour has proposed, why does he not give our proposals the same wholehearted welcome as they received from the Police Superintendents Association for England and Wales on Tuesday and recognise that our proposals in "The Quiet Life" document tackle the root of the problem of anti-social, criminal activity in neighbourhoods?

Mr. Howard: Because the hon. Gentleman knows full well that the proposals that he announced this week add nothing to those measures which are already part of our law and those which we have announced already. If we take the two together, all that we have is a bit of pretence of precisely the kind that we have come to expect from the Labour party on this and on other matters.

Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend realise that much of the recorded crime in my constituency and other coastal resorts throughout the country is committed by the thugs, louts and yobboes who have been imported into those areas to live in the hundreds of DSS hostels that have sprung up all over the place? Will he ensure that the Government take proper account of that fact in their response to the consultation paper on licensing DSS hostels?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend makes an important point and a large number of hon. Members will have great sympathy with him. I certainly accept that it should be taken into account in the response to the document to which he referred.

Victim Support Groups

Miss Hoey: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further support he will consider giving to local victim support groups. [28407]

Mr. Maclean: Victim Support receives generous financial support from the Government. We increased our grant to the organisation last year by £1.6 million—from £8.4 million to more than £10 million—a rise of 20 per cent., and we have increased it further this year by another 8 per cent.

Miss Hoey: Is the Minister aware of the excellent work by the victim support group in Lambeth, particularly the pioneering work on trauma counselling and extra security measures for pensioners who have been burgled? Will he look again at the Home Office criteria for funding Victim

Support nationally so that the new and innovative work by local groups can he funded by Home Office grants and given extra resources?

Mr. Maclean: I am well aware of the wonderful work by Victim Support around the country and of the various innovative schemes run by enthusiastic volunteers. However, the Home Office does not fund individual schemes: we fund the national organisation, which distributes funding to local groups, and that is as it should be. I would not want to get involved in making hard decisions between individual local schemes but prefer to let the professional national organisation do it. As for the overall resources, I remind the hon. Lady that in the past eight years Victim Support has received additional Government funds of 55 per cent., 43 per cent., 21 per cent., 20 per cent., 28 per cent., 15 per cent., 20 per cent. and the extra 8 per cent. this year. That is unprecedented financial support for any voluntary organisation.

Mr. Ian Bruce: What are the Government doing to support witnesses? The whole House will appreciate that when it is necessary for witnesses to come forward in order to convict guilty people we need to support those witnesses during the difficult time before and after they give evidence.

Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. We recognise that many convictions depend on the evidence of witnesses. That is why we are keen to support the Crown court witness schemes that Victim Support is setting up throughout the country and to see whether any further measures need to be taken to deal with intimidation of witnesses. That is why we welcome the measures that the Lord Chancellor's Department is taking in the design and construction of all new courts to ensure that the needs of the victims are given every bit as much importance as those of the criminal.

Dr. Howells: Is the Minister aware that a good deal of Victim Support's work arises from crime associated with hard drugs and that heroin and crack dealing is killing young people in our communities? Nine heroin-associated deaths have already occurred in mid-Glamorgan this year. What is the Minister doing to ensure that the police are given the necessary resources and direction to clear our streets of hard drug dealers?

Mr. Maclean: I am surprised to hear such a question from the Principality, where there has been generous funding of police forces this year. Throughout the whole of England and Wales, our police service has been funded on average by an award of more than 3 per cent. Our police service does an excellent job in tackling drugs, but it is only one of the partners that we want to encourage to do more about drugs. That is why the central drugs co-ordination unit published its strategy for pulling together all sectors of Government to ensure that we concentrate on removing the temptation of drugs from young people in the first place and bearing down hard on those who do it. If the Opposition had supported many of the measures in the Criminal Justice Act that they voted against, perhaps the problem would not be so severe.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Answers are becoming far too long.

African National Congress Office (Bombing)

Mr. Hain: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the latest developments in the investigation into the bombing of the London office of the African National Congress in March 1982. [28408]

Mr. Howard: The Metropolitan Police have reviewed the evidence relating to this bombing in the light of statements by Mr. Craig Williamson and have submitted a report to the Crown Prosecution Service. The more recent comments reportedly made in South Africa by Mr. Mike Leach are also being studied by the police.

Mr. Hain: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. May I ask through him that the police interview Mr. Craig Williamson and that extradition proceedings be considered? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that Mr. Mike Leach, to whom he referred, has alleged that British intelligence had prior notice of this terrorist outrage through the involvement of extreme Ulster loyalist elements? I believe that the inquiry for which I have asked the Prime Minister into the atrocity is essential. Will the Home Secretary further assure me that the Government will treat a terrorist outrage by the South Africans no less fiercely than terrorist outrages and bombings carried out by the IRA?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman should know perfectly well that these are matters for the police, and they are being investigated by the police. It might perhaps help if he had a little more confidence in the impartiality and effectiveness of our police.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Questions and answers have been inordinately long today and we have made little progress with Home Office questions. I am extremely disappointed that Members who have questions on the Order Paper have not been called because of long questions and very, very long answers.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Ms Janet Anderson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28427]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Ms Anderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that Labour's proposals for tough and effective action against criminal and anti-social neighbours have been widely welcomed as a sensible attempt to tackle a problem which causes misery to thousands of people? Given the failure of the Government's policies on law and order, will the Prime Minister now adopt our policies?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Lady right touches on a problem which concerns many people. As she will

know, we have taken action on that problem. Nothing in the proposals from the Labour party adds to that action; they are merely window dressing on Labour's part.

Sir Donald Thompson: Will my right hon. Friend today consider Gerry Adams's prediction of the increase in terrorism and Shell Oil's capitulation to terrorism?

The Prime Minister: I think that in whatever form it manifests itself terrorism is unpleasant and should be resisted.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that there are those within the Conservative party who are destabilising the Government and damaging the country?

The Prime Minister: When we were discussing Question Time I made a prediction—and I am usually right—that on this occasion the right hon. Gentleman would not pick this subject. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is an honourable friend in every sense of the word. His letter shows that few men are blessed with better personal friends than he is to me. I am immensely grateful for his continued support. His letter also shows that he is deeply concerned for the Northern Ireland peace process, to which he has contributed a very great deal.

Mr. Blair: If the questions are occasionally predictable, it is because the targets are also so predictable. It surely comes to something, does it not, when a Cabinet Minister is driven to writing to The Times about divisions in the Government without even telling the Prime Minister? If even Cabinet Ministers decide that the bitter in-fighting is damaging the national interest, will not the people of Britain conclude that the Conservative party is no longer fit to govern the country?

The Prime Minister: I seem to have noticed today that the former deputy leader of the Labour party had a little bit of bitter in-fighting of his own about the right hon. Gentleman's education policy. I also seem to recall that there was rather more in-fighting. Labour's education spokesman wrote to his colleagues at the end of last year:
We are opposed to schools opting out … nor is there any intention that GM status should continue.
There seems to be some confusion—perhaps a touch of bitter in-fighting.

Mr. Michael Brown: Does my right hon. Friend remember the massive battles that we had in the House some 15 years ago when we first removed the subsidies from British Steel? Does he also remember the massive opposition from Labour Members when we privatised British Steel? Is it not as a result of privatisation that we are today in a position in which British Steel can turn in £500 million of profits and export a product throughout the world against the toughest competition in the world? Should not Labour Members hang their heads in shame for opposing one of the most important policies for British industry?

The Prime Minister: I seem to recall some very rich opposition—not least, as I recall, from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)—to the proposal to privatise British Steel. The general proposition put forward by the Opposition was that it was totally irrelevant to the future of British Steel, that it was


produced entirely for ideological reasons and that it would do no good. From an industry which was collapsing, it is now one of the most successful industries in this country and in Europe. That has happened because of privatisation and our determination to ensure that industry is in private hands and efficient.

Sir David Steel: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28428]

The Prime Minister: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that next month is supposed to see the end of six years house arrest for the democratically elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi? Is he further aware that last week her British husband was refused a visa to go there and join in her 50th birthday celebrations? Will the Prime Minister make it unmistakably clear to the military rulers of Burma that trade with this country cannot flourish so long as there is such a basic denial of human and democratic rights?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Most people will have their own very crisp views of the present regime in Burma. It is unacceptable, and so is its behaviour. I warmly commend the right hon. Gentleman's efforts and support for the former Burmese Prime Minister, which is richly merited. Six years' detention is indefensible by any yardstick whatever and an offence against her human rights. We have made that crystal clear to the Burmese and will continue to do so.

Mr. Elletson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28429]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Elletson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under a Conservative Government parents have been given the right to choose where to educate their children? Will he therefore congratulate all those parents in the Labour party who have been courageous enough to choose grant-maintained or selective schools even though Labour's bogus education policy would destroy them?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. Like him, I support the right of every parent in the country to choose the appropriate school for their child. I just wish that some of those who exercise the choice themselves would ensure that it remains equally free for every other parent in the land. The proposals that the Labour party produced today are very badly named—"Hypocrisy and Mediocrity" should have been the title of its plans.

Dr. Godman: On the subject of Brent Spar, there is a good deal of speculation in Scotland concerning its eventual destination and it has been suggested that it is likely to end up on the lower Clyde. If that is so, will the Prime Minister give an assurance that all safety regulations will be adhered to during its dismantling?

The Prime Minister: First, let me say that I deeply regret Shell's decision to cave in to misguided pressure

from environmental groups and some foreign Governments. The plan for deep-sea disposal was ratified and agreed according to all the international obligations agreed with other Governments, and not a single Government objected to the plan until they succumbed to pressure from Greenpeace. I shall make it clear to my colleagues across Europe that there will almost undoubtedly be a price to pay for their weakness in this respect.
As for the subsequent disposal of Brent Spar, I have no means of knowing at present how that will eventually work out. If Shell seeks approval for onshore disposal, we shall naturally consider that request, but we are certainly not under an obligation to grant approval for a new abandonment plan. Shell will need to satisfy us on those issues which led us previously to the conclusion that deep-sea disposal was the best practicable environmental option. I think that, for the moment, that is where we should leave it.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28430]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: In the course of his busy day, will my right hon. Friend find time to send a message of congratulation to all who, despite threats and intimidation, battled to expose the systematic abuse of power in Labour Monklands? Does he agree that now is the time for all those who have further information about what went on there—for instance, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—to present that information, or are they worried about what we shall see of the tip of this very nasty Labour iceberg?

The Prime Minister: Certainly, on the basis of the Black report, a remarkable number of relatives of Monklands councillors seem to have been employed by the council. Its personnel department was more like a family planning department.

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28431]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. MacShane: Does the Prime Minister welcome the new right-wing Government in France and the decision of his new friend President Chirac to raise the minimum wage substantially?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the first question is yes. The answer to the second is that it is of course a mistake there, as it would be anywhere else.

Mr. Riddick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28432]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Riddick: Will my right hon. Friend as the finest interpreters at Government communications headquarters to try to make sense of the contradictory gobbledegook contained in the document misleadingly entitled,


"Diversity and Excellence: a new partnership for schools"? Is it not likely that beneath the honeyed words they will find the usual socialist disdain for schools which have managed to free themselves from the bureaucracy and interference of local education authorities?

The Prime Minister: It is certainly a very unusual document in many ways. The Labour leadership has opposed each and every education reform in recent years. It was against tests, performance tables and grant-maintained schools—not just in the distant past, but recently. Only last week, Labour's spokesman on Wales declared his opposition to grant-maintained schools. Last week it was Labour councillors penalising parents whose children are at grammar schools; today it is Lib-Lab Lincoln attacking children who win scholarships. No matter where we look, the reality is that Labour is opposed to choice, except in what it says; in what it does, there is to be no choice for anyone—except, of course, Labour Members themselves.

Mr. Salmond: Instead of the foot-stamping petulance with which, we read, the Prime Minister has greeted his humiliation over Brent Spar, will he open his mind to a constructive suggestion? As both the Government and the oil companies have a huge financial interest in deep-water disposal as opposed to onshore decommissioning, and as no one trusts either the Government or the oil companies, would it not be better to have an independent authority overseeing decommissioning of oil and gas installations? I know that the Prime Minister is somewhat embarrassed by independent inquiries, but would that not be a constructive way forward?

The Prime Minister: I am not entirely sure whether the people of Scotland will draw the conclusion that I draw—that the Scottish National party would really like the Brent Spar to be disposed of on land in Scotland at the expense of British and Scottish taxpayers. If that is the message, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take it to every household that he has deceived at recent elections.

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 22 June. [28433]

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Marshall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Hendon school in my constituency was the first grant-maintained school in London and that since then it has become oversubscribed? Does he welcome the fact that the slow learners on the Opposition Benches have suddenly realised that grant-maintained schools are successful and popular with parents?

The Prime Minister: That is certainly true, but I am afraid that time after time Labour's leaders have voted against grant-maintained schools, Labour activists have voted campaigns against grant-maintained schools, and I doubt whether anyone will be gullible enough to believe that they can be trusted. I clearly recall the Labour education spokesman writing to his colleagues at the end of last year saying:
We are opposed to schools opting out".
Frankly, they could have saved a lot of paper and a lot of hot air if they had just said that in their recent document.

Agriculture Council

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the meeting of the Council of Agriculture Ministers which started on Monday and finished after an all-night sitting at 9.20 this morning.
First, I am delighted to announce that agreement was reached for the first time on a comprehensive framework of law covering the welfare of animals transported throughout the European Community. Community rules have been set for the first time on the length of time for which animals can be transported and when journeys must be broken for food, water and rest. There will be maximum limits on travel time for all journeys and, most important of all, a clear definition of a journey's end. Animals will have to be held in one place for at least 24 hours to recover before they can be moved again.
If animals are to he transported for more than eight hours, vehicles will have to provide specified equipment such as proper ventilation and temperature control. For vehicles that do not meet those standards, eight hours will be the maximum travel time. There will also be specific rules on the space allowance that animals must be given in the different types of transport.
For the first time, therefore, we have a proper framework of rules, but equally important—or perhaps even more important—there are now European-wide powers to enforce the rules. Hauliers will have to be licensed and, if they fail to observe the rules, licences will be removed. In addition, those engaged in the trade will have to be properly trained. Journey plans will be needed for all substantial journeys across borders. The European Commission will have the role of ensuring that member states are applying the rules correctly and its veterinary inspectorate will be strengthened so that it can do so.
The chairman of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, who was present throughout the long negotiations, gave me permission to quote his views:
A great step forward. Not the end of the road but a good beginning".
I agree with him. The agreement represents a huge advance over what has previously been on offer, let alone over the position as it exists now. For those reasons I had no hesitation in voting for the measures. We have established journey limits and journey times; agreed a rigorous system of enforcement; and given a spur to higher standards of treatment and equipment to the livestock haulage industry. We also have an agreement to review the directive in three years' time. The Government will, of course, want further improvements then.
I should like to pay tribute to my officials, in particular the chief veterinary officer, and those in the Commission and elsewhere with whom we worked most closely on the way to this breakthrough.
On other matters, I am glad to report that the Council at last agreed our proposal that arable land taken out of production for forestry or environmental purposes can count against the set-aside obligation of the farmer concerned. This is something for which I have long been pressing, with the full support of environmental and farming organisations. It should boost farmers' participation in forestry and environmental schemes.
As regards the 1995 price fixing, the Council decided to maintain almost all support prices and aid rates unchanged for 1995–96. There will be some reductions in seasonal price increments for cereals and sugar storage payments, which will result in some modest cuts in expenditure.
Overall, this is a wasted opportunity. The proposals originally made by the Commission would have been a bit better. However, the Commission, in the face of pressure from other member states, amended those during the negotiations. I made it clear throughout that there would be no question of increasing the existing ceiling on common agricultural policy expenditure. Some useful items were agreed as part of the deal. For example, the Council agreed on changes to the support system for cotton aimed at stopping the sharp increases in expenditure seen in recent years.
In addition, the Commission undertook to make a proposal, before 31 July, on the rate of set-aside for arable crops sown for harvest next year. This will he an improvement on last year's timetable, when the proposal came too late. At my insistence, the Commission promised to take full account of the interests of users of cereals, particularly pig and poultry producers, who are having to pay too much.
On the so-called green currencies and the agri-monetary system, the Council agreed to changes in the ridiculously expensive and inflationary system which I voted against last December. What was agreed today was an improvement in budgetary terms. However, I still voted against it. First, I am opposed to distorting the system so as to pay farmers in some countries more than is justified by the market rate for the national currency concerned. Secondly, any arrangements must be time-limited. It was proposed to link these arrangements to the date of the introduction of a single currency. In my opinion that might well mean no time limit at all, and I could not agree to it.
This was an enormously complex and important Council. Overall the United Kingdom can be well satisfied with the outcome.

Mr. Elliot Morley: We welcome the fact that there has been some progress towards a European-wide structure for animal welfare and journey times. We particularly welcome the fact that the Council of Ministers has accepted proposals, for which the Opposition have been arguing for some time, to have a licence scheme so that exporters who break the law constantly can have the licence withdrawn and be removed from the trade. Despite our welcome for that progress, we are disappointed that in many cases the maximum time for European journeys has been increased compared with the standards laid down in our law.
I wonder whether the Minister can give us some detail about the standards that will obtain in the new vehicles that can exceed the new eight-hour limit. Does it mean that many vehicles can simply be upgraded? Will the vehicles really be of a higher standard than they are now?
Is not it true that live exports export not only the misery of the animals but jobs from this country? Should we not be concentrating within the European Commission on trying to maximise our carcase trade and the potential of our meat trade rather than exporting animals?
We are also concerned about the fact that the new proposal will not be reviewed for a further three years. That is not acceptable. The Minister should accept that


the agreement that he has achieved in Europe is only his first step on a very long path that must be travelled before he improves the position and before the standard of welfare meets the quite legitimate concerns of people who have been protesting about it at ports in Britain.
We welcome the changes—as does the Minister—to set-aside regulations, which will allow the planting of trees and count against set-aside in conservation practices. We very much hope that the Minister will continue to press for reform of the CAP. It is certainly too expensive. It is far more constructive to move towards environmental support and away from the wastage that we have seen so often in the past.

Mr. Waldegrave: It is not too controversial to say that we all want fundamental reform of the CAP. I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. I am grateful for his welcome—it was a little grudging, but it was a welcome. The licensing scheme is the key to the whole matter. The Labour party was arguing only a few weeks ago that we should introduce a licensing scheme on a national basis because it did not believe that we could get one in Europe. A national scheme would have been useless. The licensing scheme on which we have agreed will enable us to take licences away from foreign hauliers if they break the rules when they come here. That is what matters.
There is a fundamental misconception in one point made by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley). I am surprised because he is learned about such matters and has a long record of concern about them. There is no journey limit in our present legislation, although I have heard Compassion in World Farming saying that. There is a rule that animals are supposed to be fed and watered after 15 hours. That is not what I call a journey limit because hauliers can continue for another 15 hours and another 15 hours, and so on. For the first time—and this is the key—we have a proper break, which is based on the advice of vets that after 24 hours the state and stress levels of the animal are the same as they were before it was moved.
Of course we must maximise the carcase trade. We have been taking practical steps. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been in the lead on that. Already, 80 per cent. of the trade is in carcase form, but animals will always be moved across our borders as they always have been. British farmers cannot be put at the disadvantage of being the only farmers in Europe who cannot move animals across their borders.
I am grateful for the somewhat grudging welcome of the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe. The agreement is in fact a major step forward, as all those who have been engaged in the negotiations for more than two and half years—before my time in office—will realise. There is now a framework of law on which to build for the future. That is a complete revolution.

Sir Jerry Wiggin: My right hon. Friend will recall that the Select Committee on Agriculture studied the transport of live animals some three years ago. While I acknowledge that the details of its recommendations and his agreement are not precisely the same, does he accept that the philosophy of what he has agreed is in line with the recommendations, which were agreed unanimously by an all-party Committee? Does he also accept that the

agreement is a prime example of how we can lead the way in Europe? As far as I am concerned, this is a red-letter day for farm animal welfare.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the chairman of the Select Committee on Agriculture is quite right. I pay tribute to the Select Committee's work, which was very important in helping to build a consensus among responsible farmers and responsible people in the welfare organisations who wanted real progress. I have to say that the only people for whom I have had rather little time in the past few weeks were those whose insistence on a maximalist position played into the hands—as they always do in such circumstances—of those who wanted no change at all. I got the feeling finally that some of them would have been happier with no agreement at all so that they could have said that no progress was being made.
It was our duty to make a real step forward. I pay tribute to, for example, those in the RSPCA who have helped us and have said that this agreement marks real progress—it does and, in retrospect, it will be seen as a watershed in the subject.

Mrs. Ray Michie: May I too welcome the Minister's statement as a step in the right direction? I certainly hope that it will lead to further agreement on Europe-wide animal welfare. Agreements on transport may have significant consequences for farmers in Scotland, especially for the island farmers in my constituency and those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The Minister rightly congratulated his officials. Which Scottish Office Minister was with him during the talks and how many officials from the Agricultural Department at the Scottish Office were there to advise him?
What is meant by a sea journey, considering that a journey from Shetland to Aberdeen takes 18 hours? There seems to be a question about animals taken in floats and animals taken on the hoof. Are one lot considered to be resting and the others not? Who will bear the cost of the extra lairage and the upgrading of the lorries, bearing in mind the fact that my island farmers already bear high ferry costs? If extra costs are put on them, it will make life difficult.

Mr. Waldegrave: I had the position of the highlands and islands, and of Orkney and Shetland above all, very much in mind. I was accompanied throughout by a senior official from the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. The rules on sea transport are quite complex. As is common sense, it makes a difference if the animal is in a roll on/roll off lorry; that must count as part of a lorry journey. If the animal is in a pen and is being fed and watered, the time need not count towards the journey time. There is also a power in the directive to deal with the exceptional difficulties of very remote places which may, in certain circumstances, have to be triggered carefully.
I believe that it is right that the livestock hauliers should carry the costs; I make no bones about that. The agreement will raise costs for the livestock hauliers. I believe that, on balance, the House, and farmers, will think that that is right. In some places, the industry may be under pressure from costs; that matter is probably best addressed through objective I and objective 5b grants and things of that kind, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be much better able than I to deploy in the hon. Lady's part of the world.

Mr. Tom King: Is it not clear that what the interests of agriculture and of animal welfare required was a comprehensive European agreement—and an early one? May I congratulate, in a totally ungrudging way, my right hon. Friend? We are at the end of the French presidency. If the matter had gone into other presidencies, it could have lingered for a long time. My right hon. Friend is entitled to the fullest and totally ungrudging support of the whole House and of all those who have an interest in the subject.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who knows about these matters in real detail. He is perfectly right to say that we had to get a deal under the French presidency. I do not believe that the Spanish, the Italians and the Irish would have been able to put such an agreement through. There was a moment when we could get a proper agreement and we got it. It was not always in the bag and it would have been perfectly possible for there to have been no agreement. It might well then have been beyond the end of the century before we got a proper legal framework. On this agreement, we can build for the future, although the House should not make the mistake of thinking that it is all about building for the future. This deal will put an end now, as Mr. Kirkby of the RSPCA said on the radio this morning, to the 40-hour and 60-hour journeys which we know scandalously take place across Europe at present. It will bring in the licensing system to enable us really to get rid of the cowboys, and it will involve training and higher-standard lorries. The start date for the directive is 1996 and the start date for the provisions affecting lorries is 1997 because people will have to equip themselves properly. The agreement will be the beginning of a completely new world in this aspect of animal welfare.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: May I too ask about the Scottish island communities? Does the Minister appreciate that the live transport trade there is different from that elsewhere? It is an essential trade for Scottish island communities; it is not an optional trade. The animals have to be got to the mainland so that they can be finished for subsequent marketing. There should be no real complaint from welfare bodies about live transport from the Scottish island communities. Will the Minister, therefore, ask his friends in the Scottish Office to write to those of us who represent the island communities, spelling out in detail the implications of the agreement and, in particular, the provisions for exceptional circumstances?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible suggestion and I will pass it on to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. There will now be much complex implementation to do and those most closely concerned with the island communities should be involved. I am very familiar with the western isles and the transport problems. Indeed, I well remember the time when the Locheil ran on to the rocks in west Loch Tarbert and all the sheep escaped to the hills. They were in good shape when they did so.

Mr. Michael Stephen: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the tremendous efforts that he has made in Europe on behalf of animal welfare. Is this not a victory for those of us who believe in making progress through the democratic process rather than by lawbreaking, smashing people's property and obstructing

the highway? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not relax his efforts but will continue to work on behalf of animal welfare to secure proper treatment for the calves that are exported to veal crates.

Mr. Waldegrave: To widen the debate for a moment, I believe that my hon. Friend is right. This was an important test of the democratic process, and it was certainly an important test of European decision-making powers that we should be able to make real progress on that issue. That we have done so may show some of my hon. Friends that it is possible to seek and win practical European agreements in which we are the demander and have to push other countries. In response to my hon. Friend's second important point, I emphasise the fact that we have further work to do this year, and yesterday's agreement gives me good hope that we shall be successful and that veal crates will be banned. We await the report of the Community's veterinary committee, which I have every hope will say that veal crates should be banned. On the basis of the kind of coalition that worked last night, I hope that we shall achieve that ban this year.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Minister is of course to be congratulated on his statement. The vehicles will now have to be converted, so can he tell us how long a transitional period will be allowed before the conversion must be completed? My second question is about licences for transport hauliers within the United Kingdom operating in an area close to an international border. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that the licenses will not be allocated on a national basis, which would discriminate against hauliers based near an international border? Thirdly, although we understand the problems of the islands of Scotland, may I remind the Minister that in another part of the United Kingdom there is an even longer sea crossing? I hope that he will hear that problem in mind as the details are worked out. Otherwise there could be a burden on farmers in Northern Ireland. Finally, I also welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about forestry.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I had the special circumstances of Northern Ireland much in mind, having visited and talked to farmers there recently, In particular, we have said that the journey plans, which will inevitably involve a certain amount of necessary bureaucracy, should not be involved unless the journey is both eight hours long and crosses a border. One will not have to go through the whole rigmarole for short journeys across borders, and I believe that that is sensible. There will be no question of handing out the licences on a limited basis; anyone who is properly trained and has the proper equipment will get a licence. The start date for the directive is next year, and for the lorries the year after. I wanted the process to be a little quicker, but on balance it is probably fair to give people time to make the investment.

Mr. John Greenway: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the great work that he has done this week for British agriculture and for animal welfare. Can he tell the House what he thinks should now happen with the various protests that still take place at farm gates and ports? Does he agree that those who had a genuine concern about animal welfare should be satisfied that their voices have been heard and acted upon? But, sadly, some people will never be satisfied


because they wish to destroy the livestock industry. Should there not now be an end to all those demonstrations?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is a free country and people must demonstrate if they wish to. However, I agree with my hon. Friend that there are many disparate groups among the demonstrators, and clearly some of them are demonstrating not against the export or movement of animals but against the livestock industry and the eating of meat. There is nothing that I can do to satisfy those people, because we are not about to ban the eating of meat. Another group—I regard it as much the largest group, because that was the burden of the many thousands of letters and the printed post cards that we received—was not worried about the movement of animals in this country, but asked, "How can we be sure that there are any standards of enforcement once the animals have been moved abroad?" We have been fighting to answer those legitimate anxieties, and it is a major step that we now have a proper framework of European law enforcement to meet those concerns.

Mr. Harry Cohen: This is a victory for the animal rights protesters but only a partial one, because there will still be a lot of cruelty to animals under this scheme. May I ask the Minister about the agreement in respect of inspections? Will he restore the inspections at British ports which the present Government removed? What about inspections in those countries which do not give a jot about animal welfare? Under this agreement, will they not be inspecting themselves? What use is that?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is wonderful to hear the authentic voice of the Labour party's views on internationalism. Talk of the Socialist International is clearly dead—they are all foreigners with no standards at all nowadays. We now have proper inspections and checks before the journey plans are agreed. We set up that scheme under our local initiative, but—as I always made plain—it was far too weak and was bound to be full of loopholes. Now we have proper journey plans which are inspected across Europe as a whole.
The Commission is being strengthened and, while it is not often that we argue for additional resources for the Commission, we did so in this instance to fund the policing of the scheme and to ensure that local authorities in this country and in most parts of Europe do their job in inspecting the framework of rules.

Mr. Roger Knapman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a fair balance between the need on the one hand to protect animals—especially young animals—while in transit and the need on the other hand to ensure that our agriculture industry is not burdened unnecessarily or made uncompetitive? Is my right hon. Friend encouraged that bodies as diverse as the Farmers Union of Wales and the RSPCA have welcomed the agreement?

Mr. Waldegrave: I welcome the broad coalition that has taken this work forward. I am not a bit surprised that some of the maximalists on one side have joined with the minimalists on the other side to say that no progress would have been much better. That has been the experience of almost anybody who has tried to make any practical reform of anything since the beginning of time. While I believe that the agreement gives a reasonable

balance, I am not disguising from the farming and livestock industries that there will be higher costs. I believe that the industries can pay those costs, and they will have to pay them. It is the responsibility of the industries to accept proper standards, as the huge majority of British farmers are willing to do. The few who are taking the other view are unwise to do so.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Does the Minister accept that while this is a welcome first step forward, there is a great deal further to go as regards the treatment of farm animals not only abroad, but at home? Many people in this country—of whom I am one—can no longer bring themselves to eat meat because they cannot justify the way in which farm animals are treated. Will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon the meat industry that—as the number of people who no longer eat meat is growing—it is in its interests to deal not only with this issue but others such as the welfare of calves exported to veal crates, as was mentioned a moment ago by his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Stephen)?

Mr. Waldegrave: As I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument, he has not given up meat for absolute reasons, but because he thinks that the treatment of animals is not right. I think that he goes too far. The majority of our people accept that the standards on British farms are very high. I was brought up among farmers, and I believe that to be true. There are occasional lapses, and therefore there are occasional prosecutions, fines and even gaolings. The Community's achievement last night enables us to spread those standards from here and from other countries in northern Europe—there are other countries in northern Europe which have high standards—right across the Community, and that surely is the real prize.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his announcement represents a step change in the treatment of animals which are being exported? Is it not a tribute to him and to the Government for their persistence in Europe? Is not it also a tribute to British agriculture, whose ideas have been recognised yet again in Europe as leading the way in animal welfare?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is fair. I mentioned the chief veterinary officer in my statement because the reputation and standards of our veterinary profession have been helpful. When British veterinarians say that something should be done, their professional colleagues abroad tend to listen to them, and that is a great strength to us. This is a major step. I am the last person to say that it gets rid of all the problems, but we must take one step at a time, and this is a very big step. As Mr. Kirkby of the RSPCA said, it is not the end of the road, but it is the beginning of the road. Before this we were not on the road at all.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The Minister mentioned two votes that he had exercised. One was in support of animal welfare provision and the other opposed a budgetary measure. He mentioned other issues, such as the cotton regime. How many decisions were made at meetings of the Council of Ministers, and how was the Minister's vote exercised in each case? It is supposed to be agreed that such information is supplied


to the House when statements are made, although such statements are normally written and it might be easier for that information to be produced in that form.

Mr. Waldegrave: That is a perfectly fair question. Perhaps the best thing would be for me to write to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman or his Front-Bench spokesman will table a question on that subject. It was a complex package of deals and there were a number of separate decisions. As I have not been to bed for a long time, I am not certain that I would remember every item of every package.
One matter of considerable importance, which for some reason makes people laugh, is that the British knacker industry—I am glad to note that no one laughed—faced a directive that would have caused it severe problems. The directive related to additional investment, but there was permission to continue for only two years after the investment had been made. I got that changed for that industry, which is necessary in many rural areas and particularly in some of the more remote areas. It is now secure.

Mr. Roger Gale: As chairman of the all-party animal welfare group, I have to accept that those who honourably pursue a vegan agenda, together with others who less honourably use such causes only for fund-raising purposes, will not find my right hon. Friend's achievements acceptable. I share the RSPCA's view that this is a major step. Will my right hon. Friend, together with my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), who has worked so hard around Europe to take a lead in Europe, move forward by regarding this as a first step and seek to secure, ultimately, a ban on the transport of meat on the hoof, and most certainly the ending of the use of veal crates throughout the European Community? We have proved that we can achieve much: we can achieve much more.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, who spent much time travelling in Europe and persuading some of our more recalcitrant colleagues to take this subject more seriously. If we get a veal crate ban in due course, and I hope we will, it will be largely due to her work. I will not commit myself to a ban on meat on the hoof. It would not be right for British agriculture to be the only one in Europe that could not export live animals across borders. In Northern Ireland, for example, that would be absurd. That is not a sensible objective, but it is sensible to export as much in meat form as possible. We are taking steps such as marketing grants and publicity, and adopting various other measures to try to build up that trade even further. We should not get ourselves yet again into the position of shackling British farming, as has happened in the House in the past, with the result that there are more imports of animals, which were probably brought up with much lower welfare standards than ours. That is what happened over pigs.

Mr. Tony Banks: I realise that the Minister has lost much sleep recently for more than one reason. I can give him only two out of 10 for this agreement. Calves will still face 11-hour journeys, cattle and sheep will face anything up to 33 hours and pigs will

face 26 hours. Irrespective of what Conservative Members say, the good people at Brightlingsea, Dover, Shoreham and Coventry will continue to protest because large numbers of people in this country will never rest until we have banned the export of animals for slaughter.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman misses the fact that there were no journey limits of any kind in European legislation before. We now have them. I would agree that some of the journey times are too long, but we now have a structure and over the years, we will work to get them down. The real achievement is to get the concept of journey limits into law.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is genuine in his feelings, but if he would just occasionally disagree with the most populist movements, his ideas might carry even more weight.

Sir Timothy Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the agreement and his achievement in getting it will be warmly welcomed by the people of Sussex and especially by the people of Hove, where the entrance to Shoreham harbour is located and where most of the demonstrations took place? Many of the people of Hove have taken part in peaceful demonstrations, which I entirely support, but they have all suffered from the demonstrations.
Would my right hon. Friend have been able to achieve this breakthrough if we had unilaterally backed away from existing European rules, imposed bans of our own and ignored the negotiating table?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am absolutely certain that if we had followed the advice which came intermittently from the Opposition Front Bench and regularly from some on the Opposition Back Benches and pursued the route of gesture politics—which would have led us straight to the European courts—we would not have got the agreement. There would have been no incentive whatsoever for anyone to negotiate with us and we would have become engaged in interminable court cases, first in our courts and then in the courts in Europe. That would have delayed everything.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on what has been achieved. I was particularly interested in the comment that, at his insistence, the Commission undertook to look at the needs of people who require to use large volumes of cereals, namely pig and poultry producers. The intensive pig and poultry industry in Northern Ireland has been virtually wiped out. Is there any hope in what lies behind his statement that we in Northern Ireland might benefit from intervention store grain at a cheaper rate?

Mr. Waldegrave: That was certainly the intention of what I was arguing. This is in the context of the decision on probable further cuts in set-aside. There is a division in the Community about the purpose of cuts in set-aside. The French think it is a matter only of keeping up subsidised exports. That seems crazy to us. The purpose of cuts in set-aside should be to release more feed grain into the internal market where the hard-pressed poultry and pig people are struggling with prices that are making their businesses very difficult. I got the Commission to agree that that must be a consideration in its handling of the proposals that it will bring forward on set-aside and also on its handling of market management measures as to how it should release such grain.
We voted against releasing grain to Spain. I know that there is a serious drought in Spain, but there are other ways of helping them. That grain should have been released into the market of the Community to bring the price down.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: When will we hear an announcement that the Community is no longer going to spend £700 million a year on tobacco subsidies and that the money has been switched to something more useful?
On the main issue of meat, I join in the welcome for the agreement on food and farm animal welfare. Will my right hon. Friend continue to encourage people to try to specify near-farm slaughter for meat and if, for intervention purposes, we go in for meat mountains, will he try to ensure that welfare considerations are taken into account?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the first point, it is going to be a long time and a long battle before we persuade the Community to stop subsidising tobacco. Whenever the matter comes up, the British protest against it. We now have one or two allies—I suspect that the Swedes will help us, as on many other items. I do not want to be too optimistic, but I share my hon. Friend's objective whole-heartedly. It is crazy that the Community should go about trying to limit rules on advertising while at the same time subsiding the production of the product.
On the second point, I remind my hon. Friend that there is no intervention buying of beef at the moment. I am not sure that the Intervention Board has the power to do what he wants. It may simply have to exercise its market powers. I shall look into the matter and write to my hon. Friend.

Mr. David Nicholson: My right hon. Friend will be admired not only in the farming community but elsewhere, and not only for his achievement of the past 24 hours but for standing firm for many months against those who sought not only to demonstrate but to obstruct the highway to legitimate passage. In respect of the financial aspects of his recent discussions, will he assure the House that his determination to retain but reform the common agricultural policy is not abated?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance very easily. The engines that will cause the true reform of the CAP are the GATT agreements and the extension of the Community to the east in due course. We firmly believe that it would be wise for the Agriculture Council—although this is a slightly hopeful remark—to take steps in advance to show the inevitable and correct direction that we shall follow towards the market.
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words. The agreement proves that my predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Education, was entirely right to block the deal last year because the deal that we achieved this year is much better. She was told that last year's deal was the best on offer, but she was right to judge that, if we stuck it out, we would get more—and we have.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: While many people in Brightlingsea in my constituency are opposed to the live export trade in any circumstances, the vast majority of reasonable people in my constituency will welcome the agreement as progress towards better animal welfare standards in the European Union. However, will my right hon. Friend clarify the enforcement arrangements? Will he confirm that they really do mean

that we can withdraw licences from any operator operating out of the United Kingdom who breaches the rules, whether that operator is British, a foreign operator from another member state or, indeed, a foreign-owned operator from outside the European Union?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think that his analysis of people's reactions is absolutely right. The issue of enforcement was one of the major points that we won. I insisted on having the power to be able to take licences away from foreign hauliers. I was thinking of other European, Community-based hauliers, but I shall check whether we have the power to take away the licences of hauliers from outside the Community, although I doubt whether any come to this country at the moment. A key point for which I argued was that we must be able to take licences away from German, Dutch, Italian or other hauliers because they come here in considerable numbers.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that today's agreement and announcement should result in more animal welfare jobs in my constituency as a result of the probable increased use of lairage facilities? Will he also confirm that the best way to export live animals humanely is by the short sea route from the port of Dover and that today's agreement means that demonstrators should leave the port of Dover alone because we have secured a major achievement in terms of animal welfare?

Mr. Waldegrave: It is good news for my hon. Friend's constituency because, although there are other perfectly respectable ways to export animals, it is sensible to use the short routes and modern ports such as Dover which have proper lairage facilities. I can therefore support my hon. Friend in his typical and redoubtable attempt to boost his constituency.

Mr. Gary Streeter: My right hon. Friend will recall from a speech that I made in a recent Adjournment debate that animal transportation was a heated issue in the west country. Is he aware that his statement will be warmly welcomed not only by farmers in Devon and Cornwall but by the citizens of Plymouth? Will he reassure my constituents that enforcement in member states such as Germany, Spain, Italy and Greece will be just as zealous as it will no doubt be in this country?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is right. The Parliamentary Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mrs. Browning), and I are in pretty close touch with west country opinion. Enforcement was one of the big items missing in the deal offered to my predecessor last year under the Greek presidency. The Community has now agreed that every country should produce an annual report on how it is enforcing the measures. There will be a strengthening of the Commission's inspectorate and it will be its duty to check that national authorities are doing their job. It will no doubt be a hard battle to ensure proper enforcement everywhere but we have at last got the proper framework for doing so.

Mr. Harry Greenway: May I tell my right hon. Friend that one of my abiding memories is of seeing a load of horses unloaded after two days and two nights' travel without rest, without water or food—much, anyway—and without exercise and then given a good beating? I welcome his statement today, because I hope that such long journeys will be a thing of the past. May I


have his assurance that there will be proper inspection when journeys end, and that there will always be such an inspection, or at least the threat of one?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can confirm what I have already said about enforcement to my hon. Friend. Of course nothing in the agreement upsets the special arrangements that prevent the export of horses from this country.

Dr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he was right to remind the House that the Labour party has consistently advocated a licensing scheme for livestock hauliers? Does he accept that any benefits from the agreement will largely be determined by how effectively those licensing schemes are implemented in this country and other member states?
Does the Minister also accept that the vast majority of the examples of animal cruelty that have worried the British people, and which have sometimes appeared on our television screens, have concerned the long distances that animals are transported to slaughter on the continent?
In that regard, the agreement fails to tackle the major issues. Animals will continue to be transported for as many as 29 hours with only a one-hour break for watering before slaughter; after 24 hours, it will be possible for them to start their journey all over again; and, in the case of even young animals such as calves, it will be allowable to transport them for 19 hours with only one hour's watering.
May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that in relation to that crucial aspect—the very long journeys to slaughterhouses on the continent—the agreement is a disappointment? If it is the case that Agriculture Ministers decided last night that the agreement will not be reviewed for at least three years, does that not make it all the more essential that we ensure that the licensing systems are operated effectively, and that we make fast progress on a range of other aspects of animal welfare, including the continental ban on veal crates?

Mr. Waldegrave: It would be ridiculous to have a review of a new directive in less than three years. It will take at least three years to gain experience that will be worth reviewing. That is a perfectly sensible time limit.
When the hon. Gentleman was arguing that we should introduce national measures on licensing and so on, he did so, firmly telling the House that we would never get the agreement that we have got today. We have got the agreement that we have today. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he voted himself for the re-establishment of the live animal trade in 1975, when the standards were far lower than those that I have agreed today.

Business of the House

Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): With permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the business for next week.
MONDAY 26 JUNE—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Health Authorities Bill.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Jobseekers Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at 7 o'clock.
TUESDAY 27 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Environment Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 28 JUNE—Until 2.30 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Environment Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 29 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Bill.
FRIDAY 30 JUNE—Debate on the conduct of local government in Great Britain on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The House will also wish to know on a provisional basis that in the following week, I propose that Monday 3 July should be another Opposition day, and that on Tuesday 4 July and Wednesday 5 July, the House should undertake consideration of the remaining stages of the Pensions Bill [Lords]. Government business will also be taken on Thursday 6 July. On Friday 7 July, the House will not be sitting.

Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. Does he recognise the serious concern about the Environment Bill [Lords], which will be considered on Report next week? Does he acknowledge that the Bill is now very different from the legislation on Second Reading? There have been 237 Government amendments in Committee and the Government have now tabled another 77 amendments to be considered on Report, apparently with more to come. Does the Leader of the House recognise that the scale and number of amendments will make it virtually impossible for the House to consider the changes properly, even with a two-day Report stage? It cannot be good legislation to have so many amendments at that stage, especially as the Bill originated in another place.
On a different matter, does the Leader of the House think that it might be appropriate to have a debate on the remarks of the Minister for Industry and Energy, who threatened the Shell oil company that it risks forfeiting the right to offset the costs of dealing with Brent Spar against petroleum revenue tax and corporation tax? We need to know whether the Minister was speaking for the Treasury or, given his view that Shell has dropped the Government in it, whether he was simply making vindictive threats.
Does the Leader of the House intend to provide time in the near future for a debate on the very important report of the Select Committee on Health into the London ambulance service? That must be a matter of urgency, as


the report reveals that lives have been lost. Even Conservative Members have said that Ministers have been extraordinarily complacent about the issue. Does the Leader of the House intend to allow a debate on that life and death matter in the near future?
Finally, will the Leader of the House tell us whether next Friday's debate on local government will be a serious debate, or are the rumours correct that it will be opened by the chairman of the Conservative party in his swan song?

Mr. Newton: As to the hon. Lady's last question, the debate on Friday is certainly intended to be—and I have no doubt that it will be—a serious debate. Anyone who has studied the report on the affairs of Monklands, for example, will be aware that there are a number of serious issues to debate. I can confirm that, because of the wide-ranging nature of the debate and the fact that it extends to all parts of Great Britain, it will be opened by my right hon. Friend the Minister Without Portfolio.
Taking the hon. Lady's other three questions in reverse order, I have studied the report of the Select Committee on Health into the London ambulance service, which contains a number of important points and which the Government will clearly respond to in the proper manner. I cannot undertake to make time available for an early debate on the subject, although there are other ways in which time for debate might be found. I am always looking for opportunities to debate Select Committee reports, as I think that I have demonstrated.
As to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy, I think that I can answer the hon. Lady most conveniently by saying that I understand that the company announced today that it will be making no requests for tax allowances for its share of any additional cost.
I acknowledge that there have been a substantial number of amendments to the Environment Bill [Lords]. That, in part, reflects the Government's wish—and indeed their anxiety—to respond to many points made by various bodies, including the Opposition, during the passage of the Bill. There would be just as many complaints if the Government had not responded to those representations.

Mr. Bill Walker: I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has confirmed that the debate on Friday 30 June will be a serious one. Can he verify that hon. Members who are affected directly by the Monklands saga will be present in the House for that debate? I refer to the leading members of the Labour party who secured a private inquiry and who obtained information, but failed to give that information to the inquiry. There was obviously a cover-up and Labour Members must come to this place and answer for their actions. What means do we have at our disposal to ensure that they are present on the day to answer to the House, as Labour Members are always asking others to do?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend has already used the most potent means at his disposal, which is to draw attention to the conclusions that will be drawn should those to whom he refers not be in attendance. I do not know whether it is a deficiency, but I have no powers to direct the attendance of Members in the House.

Ms Margaret Hodge: I heard the response to the question about the London ambulance service, but as there is no hospital in my constituency or in the borough following the closures, my constituents are badly

affected by the extremely poor service from the London ambulance service. According to the report in the Today newspaper, only 15 per cent. of 999 calls are answered within eight minutes, despite the Secretary of State's commitment to improve it. In view of that, it is appropriate that the Leader of the House should provide a proper debate in Government time on that serious issue.

Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said, but the hon. Lady might have acknowledged that as a result of a huge amount of effort by Ministers and health authorities, after a long period of difficulty in the London ambulance service, which is still not totally overcome, there have been substantial improvements in performance in recent months. That is the result of the effort that has been put in by the Government.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend had time to note that today's Order Paper shows that early-day motion 557, calling for a construction contracts Bill, has no fewer than 171 signatures, despite being a relatively narrow motion?
[That this House notes that the construction industry produces almost 10 per cent. of gross national product and is made up of more than 200,000 companies and a workforce of over one and a quarter million people; welcomes the proposals put forward by the Latham Report to improve the relationship between clients, contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry and improve value for money by an estimated 30 per cent. over the next five years and so encourage an increase in construction activity; notes the crucial role that a Construction Contracts Act would play in the implementation of the report's findings, recognising that it will reduce commercial red tape, and improve payment security by reducing payment abuse, introduce trust funds, and provide for a system of speedy and inexpensive dispute resolution; and therefore requests that Her Majesty's Government considers the introduction of a Construction Contracts Bill, during the next Parliamentary session, as recommended in the Report.]
I understand that the consultation period, which ends next week, reveals industry-wide support for such a measure. Can my right hon. Friend offer us a sign that the Government will respond to the widely held requirement for such a Bill, which would reduce costs—and that should commend it even to the Treasury?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that I am not in a position to anticipate the Queen's Speech, to use a time-honoured phrase. He will know, however, that I have repeatedly made what I hope he and others will have taken as friendly noises towards that proposition.

Ms Liz Lynne: There are now a staggering 1 million primary schools in England with class sizes of more than 30. Will the Leader of the House make time for an urgent debate on primary school education and nursery provision?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Lady knows that the Government are considering policy on those matters. I hope that her patience will not be tested too much longer.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that a statement is made next week on matters that came to light in Home Office questions today? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the


Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), told us that an escaped prisoner from Parkhurst was able to ring "The World at One" to give an interview? That is outrageous. If my right hon. Friend cannot provide a statement next week, will he ensure that a full report on that particular incident is placed in the Library?

Mr. Newton: I am glad to say that, with his usual assiduousness, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State gave me an account of the exchanges during Home Office questions. I can best acknowledge my hon. Friend's legitimate concern and refer him to what my right hon. Friend said.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does the Leader of the House believe that we should have a debate about procedures in this place, in particular the rules of etiquette? Has he seen The Sun today, in which a former chairman of the Conservative party criticises the present chairman of the Conservative party? Is not it about time that we had a debate, so that people could get rid of their steam and ill-will towards each other?

Mr. Newton: I have noticed that there are two kinds of debate: one in which people get rid of their steam and the other, which is more frequent, in which the steam is raised. I do not want to look for one of the latter.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Given the serious threat to environmental safety resulting from pressures put on Shell, which brought about the abandonment of the deep-water sinking of Brent Spar due to the irresponsible behaviour of certain individuals and foreign Governments, will my right hon. Friend consider finding time for a debate on the issue before the summer recess?

Mr. Newton: Obviously, I shall consider the point that my hon. Friend raises. I do not think that I can give any undertaking. I thought the most fascinating question during Prime Minister's questions was asked by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). On the day after his party was claiming credit for having prevented the deep-sea sinking of the rig, the hon. Gentleman was protesting about the possibility that it might arrive in his part of Scotland.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland be making a statement next week, apart from in Question Time, on how the peace process in Northern Ireland is being destabilised, as he has put it in a letter to The Times, as a result of the civil war in the Tory party and a campaign by Tory Members against the Prime Minister?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's comment on that matter less than an hour ago. It has already been implicitly acknowledged that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will answer questions next Thursday. I do not at present anticipate any statement apart from the opportunity that Northern Ireland questions will provide.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Is it possible to follow up the early-day motions on Brent Spar, including the one in my name, early-day motion 1280?
[That this House waits to hear from Greenpeace, the German government, the opposition parties and others why they prefer a less favourable environmental approach and a more risky method for the disposal of Brent Spar.]
Given the dispute as to which is the most favourable and least favourable environmental disposal option and which is the more risky for those who will be involved in turning the rig sideways and bringing it to land, would it not be a good idea to allow Opposition and Government Members to debate the issues, with scientific advice, and to take full account of the health and safety risks, which appear to be welcomed by many Opposition Members?

Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's further support for such a debate, which will obviously increase still further my willingness at least to consider the matter.

Dr. John Marek: Will the Leader of the House give the House an assurance that there will be no unnecessary delay by the Government or Ministers in the publication of the Scott report and its early debate in the House?

Mr. Newton: Certainly, I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Government have not been seeking to promote delay, let alone unnecessary delay.

Mr. Nigel Evans: May I press my right hon. Friend once more for a debate on grant-maintained schools? Such a debate would give us an opportunity to expose the Labour party's policy on education. It is trying to say that it is now friendly towards grant-maintained status, yet in a letter the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) stated that his party is opposed to grant-maintained schools and wants to bring them back into a local democratic framework. The parents of the children who attend grant-maintained schools in my constituency voted to get themselves out of Labour Lancashire control. The last thing that they want is to have councillors foisted back on to their governing bodies.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend makes some good points, which follow others made earlier in business questions and Prime Minister's questions. I cannot promise a debate, and I rather doubt that the Opposition will use one of their Supply days for such a purpose. I can, however, draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will be answering questions next Tuesday.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Can the Leader of the House help us? Is the title chosen for the debate on Friday 30 June and the Government spokesman, the Minister Without Portfolio, a confession that there is not real local government in Northern Ireland?
In the light of an unprecedented press release yesterday by the Minister for Health following the publication of the report on the London ambulance service, and having waited, as usual, some weeks for a Government report, surely it is time to debate that matter at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Newton: Of course, I note, especially given its provenance, a further request for a debate. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will also take note of the hon. Gentleman's request.
The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question was rather different from the second. The title given to the debate should be interpreted not as any sort of confession but as perhaps more of a recognition that discussions are taking place in other ways about Northern Ireland.

Lady Olga Maitland: May I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) said and call for a debate on grant-maintained schools? Is my right hon. Friend aware that parents in my constituency are very alarmed at what they see as the socialist shambles in the Labour party's proposed education policy? They see a threat to the independence of their schools, and what we are seeing is creeping town hall dictatorship, which, frankly, they do not want.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is quite right to see a threat to independence, which so many schools value, disguised under a cloud of misleading language. Even so, I could promise a debate only if my hon. Friend were prepared to give me an assurance that she would be prepared to contemplate the House sitting into August.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: Last June, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in a flurry of publicity, opened a private hospital in Scotland, which went into receivership in November. Is the Leader of the House aware of the concern, on both sides of the House, that at a time when the NHS is starved of resources, £28 million of public money went into what was described by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Sir K. Carlisle) as a "dodgy venture"? Does he not think that the Secretary of State for Scotland should come to the House next week so that we can debate the issue and put questions to him?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman probably knows that the Public Accounts Committee held a hearing on that issue yesterday and will now draw together any conclusions that it has reached. Clearly, it would be inappropriate for me to make any further comments.

Mr. Peter Luff: Thank you, Madam Speaker, or should I say Dr. Speaker? Will my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on all country sports, not just those involving mammals? Does he agree that such a debate would enable all of us in the House—there are some Opposition Members—who believe that participation in such sports should be a matter for the individual conscience, to expose the shabby hypocrisy of a party that pledges its support for angling, because its supporters fish, but seeks to oppose hunting with hounds because it believes—wrongly—that only Tories hunt?

Mr. Newton: It seems to me that many of the same issues arise in relation to all the aspects to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Will next week's business be similar to this week's business in Committee? Is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday there were 33 Committee meetings, covering 408 places? A total of 380 Members were involved—some were serving on two Committees—so more than half the Members of the House were involved in Committee work on that occasion. Is not that occurring increasingly because Parliament is meeting less often, which means that Committee meetings have to be squashed into more limited periods? Can we consider that when planning the sittings of the House?

Mr. Newton: There are a variety of factors, including the fact that hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have in recent times been more reluctant to sit for long hours into the night, and it is probably sensible that they should not. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who sometimes makes comments that suggest that nobody in this place does any work at all, for drawing attention to the amount of work that does take place.

Mr. John Marshall: Madam, Dr. Speaker, may I congratulate you on your absence yesterday?
Can my right hon. Friend find time for an early debate on early-day motion 1272?
[That this House believes that the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II is the ideal time to acknowledge the terrible suffering of the former servicemen and civilian internees who were taken prisoner by the Japanese during the course of the War; expresses its deep concern that, despite the 50 years that have elapsed since the end of the War, the Japanese Government has failed to apologise formally for their actions and compensate the former prisoners of war and civilian internees for their suffering; and calls on Her Majesty's Government to take whatever steps it can to support the former prisoners, including refusing to agree to Japan being given a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, until this matter is resolved and by calling on the Japanese Government to apologise fully to the former prisoners of war and civilian internees and compensate them to the sum of £14,000 each.]
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Japanese treated their prisoners viciously and abominably, and that that very rich country should pay them compensation?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw a delegation of some of those affected by those matters yesterday. It is, of course, the Government's view that the question of compensation was legally settled by the peace treaty of 1951, but as I think my hon. Friend knows,. the Government continue to make clear to the Japanese Government the strong feelings on that issue, which my hon. Friend and others articulate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House stop protecting the Secretary of State for Health and ensure that there is a debate in Government time on the London ambulance service in the near future? Is he aware that it was more than 10 years ago when I and a number of Labour Back Benchers first raised the issue of the problems of the LAS: its lack of investment and its poor performance? Those issues have been constantly raised ever since. All the problems that we and many others outlined have been confirmed time and again by a number of inquiries and Select Committee reports. It is abominable that after all this time the people of London still do not have an efficient ambulance service that they can rely on, and responsibility for that lies entirely with the Secretary of State and her Department.

Mr. Newton: I can assume only that the hon. Gentleman has not read the report, as I have, because it in no way corresponds with his last sentence.

Mr. Gary Streeter: In view of the Labour party's astonishing decision not to make public the evidence given to the Black inquiry into Labour


Monklands, has my right hon. Friend any power to persuade the Select Committee on the Environment to launch its own inquiry into the depths of depravity, corruption and abuse at Monklands so that that evidence can he made public?

Mr. Newton: No, I have no such power, but I think it rather a good idea for the Committee to examine the matter.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Leader of the House still enjoying his job? Each week he comes here to announce the business for the ensuing week. On a number of occasions recently, business—at least on the Floor of the House—has collapsed at 7 or 8 pm. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to arrange a debate about debates? If not, perhaps we can have some discussion through the usual channels. We are losing good debating time on the Floor of the House; if business is to collapse early, perhaps we can reach an agreement whereby the time could be used by assiduous Back Benchers who want to raise a number of subjects.

Mr. Newton: I am still enjoying my job, and one of the parts of it that I enjoy most is hearing the hon. Gentleman's questions.

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend will know that the Select Committee on Home Affairs recently published an excellent report about the private security industry. Because the report sensibly avoids any possible public expenditure, however, it cannot be debated on estimates days. Will my right hon. Friend listen sympathetically to the Committee's pleas for a debate on that important issue—in Government time, or perhaps a three-hour debate on a Wednesday morning?

Mr. Newton: Wednesday mornings are primarily a matter for application to you, Madam Speaker. I shall continue to listen sympathetically to my hon. Friend's other comments.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: May we have a statement from the Leader of the House, in lieu of the Prime Minister, about the subject matter of a press conference convened by the Prime Minister at No. 10 Downing street 10 minutes ago? Surely, if an extraordinary press conference is to be held about some matter that is yet to be disclosed, it ought to be disclosed to Parliament by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House, rather than to the press. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us the subject of the press conference, so that, if necessary, we can ask for an extraordinary statement or a special debate?

Mr. Newton: I can confirm that I understand that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is holding a press conference. The hon. Gentleman may wish to make his own inquiries about the subject matter.

Mr. Harold Elletson: In an earlier reply, my right hon. Friend said that he was always keen to find an opportunity to debate Select Committee reports. Is he aware that the Select Committee on the Environment is shortly to launch an inquiry into the workings of the single regeneration budget, but probably will not produce its report until October, after the next round of SRB bids has been announced? Would it therefore be appropriate to arrange a short debate about the workings of the single regeneration budget on the Floor of the House, particularly so that we can examine some of the problems faced by coastal resorts and ways in which the SRB could he used to assist them?

Mr. Newton: That is a very good idea, and I shall consider it.

Points of Order

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to today's Order paper and in particular to Question 4? You were unable to call the hon. Member who had tabled it, because he was not present. I understand that there can be reasons for hon. Members not to be present, but would you have any objection to allowing another hon. Member to ask the question if the hon. Member whose name is on the Order Paper is unavailable? If you have no objection, perhaps the matter could be raised with the Procedure Committee.

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can answer the point of order, and there can be only one. I would have the strongest possible objection to any hon. Member asking a question that was in another's name. I know that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) really raised the matter to highlight the fact that hon. Members are not always in their places to be called, and I hope that that has strengthened my elbow: I am often very cross when hon. Members do not let my office or Ministers know when they are unable to put their questions.

Mr. Banks: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker—

Madam Speaker: There can be no further point of order. Is this a different point

Mr. Banks: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) is in Paris attending a meeting of the Western European Union. No doubt he should have told you that

he would not be here, and withdrawn the question; but I think that the House ought to know that he is on parliamentary business elsewhere.

Madam Speaker: Irrespective of whether hon. Members are on parliamentary business, I think it right that my office should be told when they are not present to put their questions.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose—

Madam Speaker: We are not having a debate about the matter. Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Bottomley: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible to send Question 4 to the compilers of the "Oxford English Dictionary"? Given the number of car crashes, the spelling "wreckless" ought to be noted.

Madam Speaker: How observant of the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that that will be drawn to the attention of the appropriate authorities.

Mr. McLoughlin: rose—

Madam Speaker: Yet another point of order!

Mr. McLoughlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I did not mean in any way to criticise the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy); I was merely making the point that the subject matter of the question was particularly important. I do not think that we shall have another chance to discuss it in Home Office questions for some time.

Madam Speaker: Indeed. I know that a number of hon. Members were anxious to ask supplementary questions. I entirely understand that the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) has duties elsewhere, but I repeat that when hon. Members have duties elsewhere, they are aware of the questions that they have tabled, and ought to apologise to the House.

Orders of the Day — Crown Agents Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

THE CROWN AGENTS FOUNDATION

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall not dispose of any securities or rights issued to him in pursuance of section 3 above or acquired by him under section 4 above except to a company which shall be known as the Crown Agents Foundation (the "Foundation") and which complies with the conditions set out in this section.

(2) The objects of the Foundation shall be—

(a) to acquire and hold on such terms as the Foundation may think fit such securities or rights issued to the Secretary of State in pursuance of section 3 above or acquired by him under section 4 above as the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the Treasury, transfer to them;
(b) to relieve the poverty, distress and suffering of peoples in any part of the world arising from any disaster or the immediate or continuing results of want of natural or artificial resources or the means to develop them; and
(c) to promote the education and training of peoples in any part of the world where there is a want of natural or artificial resources or the means to develop them in any vocational, commercial, industrial or agricultural skills calculated to alleviate the want of such resources or means.

(3) Every member of the Foundation (a "subscriber) shall, with the consent of the Secretary of State, undertake to contribute such amount as may be required, not exceeding £1, to the Foundation's assets if it should be wound up while he is a member, or within one year after he ceases to be a member, for payments of the Foundations debts and liabilities contracted before he ceases to be a member, and of the costs, charges and expenses of winding up, and for the adjustment of the rights of the contributories among themselves.

Provided that a majority of subscribers shall have direct experience of the objects of the Foundation under subsection 2(b) and (c) above.

(4) The subscribers shall elect, whether from among their number or otherwise, the Council of the Foundation ("the Council") which shall manage and may exercise all the powers of the Foundation.

Provided that a majority of members of the Council shall have direct experience of the objects of the Foundation under subsection 2(b) and (c) above.

(5) The powers, duties, obligations and organisation of the Foundation shall be set out in a Memorandum and Articles of Association, a draft of which shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament by the Secretary of State.'.—[Miss Lestor]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Miss Joan Lestor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Underpinning debates on Crown Agents in the Chamber, in Committee and in the other place has been a genuine cross-party desire to maintain the development focus of Crown Agents, while at the same time securing its commercial future. That task is difficult, and I must record my continuing belief that the privatisation is not wholly compatible with the development aims of the organisation. Opposition Members will be keeping a close watch over the fine print of the privatisation programme, and will not hesitate to raise our relevant concerns in the future.
Many of our detailed misgivings, however, have been somewhat allayed as a result of the answers given by Ministers during those debates, and in particular the Government's response to close and persistent questioning in Committee from my hon. Friends the Members for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) and for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton).

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Where is the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes)?

Miss Lestor: I believe that he is in an aeroplane, if the hon. Gentleman really wants to know.
I am also particularly grateful to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Minister for Overseas Development for the eve-of-Committee release of the memorandum and articles of association. The resulting brisk and businesslike discussion clarified many important aspects.
I am being so nice to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, but he is not responding in any way. In case he did not hear what I said, I was thanking him very much for the memorandum and articles of association, for which we had asked during an earlier debate.
One of our concerns related to the lack of detail in the Bill and, in particular, to the vague references to the composition page 9 of the foundation that will assume responsibility for the running of Crown Agents. Our anxieties on that specific issue have not been allayed. What do we know about the composition and responsibilities of members of the foundation? The Minister for Overseas Development has told us that foundation members will not receive dividends and will not be appointed by Ministers, that some may serve on the board and that existing members of Crown Agents' board will be among the founder members.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State provided us with a list of organisations from which foundation members would emerge. I say "emerge" because it is far from clear by what process potential members will identify themselves, or he identified by some other body or individual. He said:
The Government will not be involved in nominating or selecting subscribers, but we hope"—
hon. Members should note the word "hope"—
that a group of organisations will naturally coalesce".
Is it really all to be left to chance? Can we expect to see a rash of small ads in the financial columns of The Guardian, for example—"Single company seeks others for joint venture, view formation of foundation to run Crown Agents. Please send prospectus"? Of course not. The Minister went on to say:
I imagine that the existing Crown Agents will have some synergy in that process.
Such vagueness is why I raise this point; it is a clear abrogation of Government responsibility. When pressed by my hon.—and absent—Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, the Minister suggested a list of the sort of organisations that might be interested in "coalescing". He suggested that
the British Consultants Bureau, the British Chamber of Commerce, the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply, the Chartered Institute of Building


might be in the frame, but he did not go on to give any more specifics, adding that that group might be joined by
organisations that are involved in developmental studies".— [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 15 June 1995; c. 13.]
Which organisations? Why, when he could be specific about the former group, was he unable to name a single developmental organisation that might be involved? That vagueness causes us concern.
Therefore, will the Minister advise us which developmental organisations he has in mind? He has identified that, so he must have some in mind. Has the Crown Agents had any approaches from or made approaches to United Kingdom development organisations, or foreign development organisations based in other countries, for example, the Japanese National Aid Agency? So far, my searches among the major UK providers of developmental assistance—the non-governmental organisations—have failed to identify any such approaches. I hope that the Minister will fill that in.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I declare a connection? I am one of the grandchildren of a Crown agent from just before the war. Does the hon. Lady know whether the foundation trustees would be barred from being Members of the House? If not, would it not be a good idea if she suggested that, to give confidence and allay fears, she should seriously be considered as one of the people who could become one of the foundation trustees?

Miss Lestor: I am flattered that the hon. Gentleman singles me out in that way, but, quite honestly, I have no wish to do that and I am not sure of the circumstances surrounding people in such a position; it is not something that I seek in any way.
We know from discussions that have taken place between the Overseas Development Administration and the Treasury that, in some ministerial circles, a strong feeling exists that the foundation should be made up of what I believe has been called "hard-nosed business men"—in order not to be sexist, I would add women as well, although I am not a hard-nosed business woman and have no wish to be. I have no wish to impugn the integrity of such people, but I must call into question their commitment to development—and it is the developmental side that I am concerned about and that should be at the heart of the foundation. That is why we have argued and continue to argue for a balance to be established, and that half the initial subscribers to the foundation should have a background in development issues.
In the circumstances, I cannot see how the Minister can continue to maintain what seems to be his distant approach to the process of establishing the foundation, especially as he has agreed that the Government will retain an active interest in the running of the foundation for the traditional period. If the Crown Agents is to maintain—and enhance—its reputation after privatisation, it must have at the heart of its structure a management that retlects the developmental purpose of the organisation which we would hold it has. I hope therefore that the Minister, if he wishes to have our support, will give us an assurance that that will be the case.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tony Baldry): I apologise to the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss

Lestor) if I appeared not to be paying full attention at one stage to what she was saying. It was not intentional and I thank her for her kind comments.
Throughout the Bill's passage, we have been trying to reassure all hon. Members of what we are about: ensuring that the Crown Agents can take its work forward into the 21st century as a developmental agency, but within the private rather than the public sector. We have achieved that because, if one considers the new clause tabled by the Opposition, it summarises many of the Government's plans for the Crown Agents. I congratulate the hon. Lady on drafting the new clause in that way. It could have been drafted only by someone who had read the various speeches that Ministers have made here, in another place and in Committee, and it summarises the understanding and commitments that we have given to both the House and another place.
Of course we understand the concern behind the new clause: to know as much as possible about our proposals. The Government have already gone the extra mile to meet that concern. We have placed in the Library a copy of the draft memorandum and articles of association for the foundation that will own Crown Agents. We have said that the information memorandum for prospective members will be published well before transfer, and that we will present a further report to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We have given the House as much information as is consistent with commercial confidentiality and the complex process of transferring a business into the private sector.
It is inappropriate to attach to legislation the extra information that the Government have made available. The Bill follows a precedent set in the House and followed on every previous occasion. It is an enabling measure, designed to expedite measures that the Government have described many times in great detail. It is unnecessary to specify the intended eventual owner in this way.
There will not be any extra benefit from the new clause. It will not reveal more about the nature of the foundation than is already known. It is not designed to change Government policy—we are committed to the foundation route. We have said from the first that the owner of the Crown Agents in the private sector will be an independent foundation whose memorandum and articles will commit it to a social and developmental purpose. We have said that it will be a company limited by guarantee that will not distribute dividends to its members, but use its profits solely in pursuit of its objectives.
We have also given some indication of the balance of membership that we envisage for the foundation. Of course it is appropriate that its membership should reflect the international character of the Crown Agents' activities and social purpose, and that it should provide an enduring basis on which to expand the business. Membership will consist of organisations active in international development which endorse the Crown Agents' purpose and principles. Those will include charities, private sector companies, professional and trade organisations, other aid organisations and enduring institutions.
There has been little time since Committee to enable us to be more definite about prospective membership of the foundation because of the progress that we have made with legislation, but I can give the names of some of the organisations that have expressed their interest in membership since Committee—these are of course in


addition to those that I gave on Second Reading. They include financial institutions such as Barclays bank, companies from industry such as Cable and Wireless, professional bodies such as the British Standards Institution, and registered charities such Christian Aid, the Intermediate Technology Development Group and the development education organisation, Worldaware. We are therefore seeking to strike a balance between those with business experience, those who have experience in developmental work, and those who have experience in aid and development more generally.
I hope that the hon. Lady will be reassured that we most certainly do not see the foundation as being made up simply of, as she put it, hard-nosed business men and women; we see it as reflecting the broad interests of Crown Agents. On Second Reading I explained in some detail—the House will recall that we had a full day's debate on Second Reading—how the foundation and its membership will come about.
I think that the last part of the new clause is intended to subject transfer to an affirmative resolution procedure. Again, we are on well-trodden ground. The Government have made available a wealth of information about the owner of the Crown Agents. Ownership of the business will be passed to the foundation, whose draft memorandum and articles of association are available to hon. Members—copies are in the Library. The Government's plans are well known and there is no reason to break with precedent in this case and attach further unnecessary conditions to the transfer.
I hope that the hon. Lady, having heard further information about the membership of the foundation, and that organisations such as Christian Aid are prepared to be identified with it in due course, will feel that it is not necessary to press the new clause.

Miss Lestor: The Minister has been a little more forthcoming in response to questions that I have raised. As he said and as I reiterated, we are anxious that this has a development angle as well as a business angle. He has gone a little way to meet my requirements. He is asking us to take a lot on trust but, as I am still, despite my many years in the House, a trusting individual, I shall just say to the Minister that we will be watching the formation of the foundation carefully. I hope that what he has said is reflected in the make-up of the foundation and in the angle that we have proposed. For those reasons, I am happy not to press the new clause.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Order for Third reading read
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third.time—[Mr. Baldry.]

Lady Olga Maitland: It is with great pleasure that I welcome the final stage of this important Bill. I have the privilege and pleasure to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which the headquarters of Crown Agents is located. Therefore, I have been taking a detailed and careful interest in the Bill's progress. I do that because I regard Crown Agents as the flagship for the United Kingdom. When we talk about Great Britain, we believe that that is symbolised in

the magnificent work of Crown Agents. It is the leading aid procurement agency in the world. It has handled an enormous amount of important work for the Overseas Development Administration and the Japanese Government as well as for many other customers throughout the world—indeed, in 150 countries.
This enabling Bill is important because we hope to see Crown Agents being given greater commercial freedom to be able to move into the 21st century. It is essential that Crown Agents should be unfettered and should be set free from the remaining Government restraints. I hope that as we move into the transition phase, all the comments and recommendations that I made on Second Reading and in Committee will be discussed carefully and heeded. In the end we all want Crown Agents to continue the magnificent work of which we are so proud.

Mr. Baldry: The Crown Agents Bill has now had a thorough examination at each of its stages in this House and in another place. We have debated a number of key issues including the corporate structure of the proposed foundation and the operating company, aspects of the financial arrangements of the new Crown Agents and the interests of staff and pensioners.
I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the proceedings on the Bill for the constructive way in which they have approached it. It took a little time to convince the Opposition that we were genuine in our intentions. As the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) said, there is a measure of trust on this. I hope that we have demonstrated, through the memorandum and articles of association and the other work that we have done, that we want to see Crown Agents move into the 21st century, retaining its existing ethos but within the private rather than the public sector.
The Bill allows Crown Agents to take a further important step forward in its long and distinguished history. It contains the necessary enabling provisions to provide a stable and secure future for the business fully in the private sector well into the 21st century.
We have put the Government's plans for Crown Agents on record in the House and in the draft memorandum and articles of association. We intend that those plans will preserve what is best in Crown Agents tradition in a form suited to our modern and increasingly competitive world. We will continue to make available information to hon. Members if it is not commercially sensitive and once we are certain that it is the right approach. My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development will present a further paper to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs before transfer is due to take place.
I have said that I will be glad to consider any suggestions that hon. Members may have to improve the memorandum and articles of association with the proviso that they are not, ultimately, the property of the Government but of the foundation. I am sure that all hon. Members will join me in wishing Crown Agents every success. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), who has the Crown Agents headquarters in her constituency. She has been a tireless champion of Crown Agents throughout proceedings on the Bill. Crown Agents should be grateful that it has such a doughty Member of Parliament. I am sure that every hon. Member wishes Crown Agents every success as it moves on to its next stage.

Miss Joan Lestor: We could continue this debate until 10 o'clock, but in view of the assurances that the Minister has given and the fact that some important matters may be raised in a moment, I join the Minister in wishing Crown Agents good fortune for the future. We will be looking at the details of this with great interest and I hope that things go well and smoothly.

Points of Order

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Prime Minister has announced his resignation as leader of the Conservative party and has announced that he will be a candidate in any forthcoming election. Have you had any notification of that statement? Have you had any notification that the Prime Minister will come to the House and make a statement? Have you any indication as to whether the most appropriate thing to do in all these circumstances would be to call a general election?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. I can deal with that now. I have had no such indication.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. Mackinlay: It is on the same subject, but it is a different point. If the news that has been imparted to you by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is true, it has raised a constitutional issue which requires that before the House adjourns, there should be a statement from the Government. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) is the Prime Minister, not just the leader of the Conservative party. We need to know who is running the country, if indeed anybody is doing so.

Madam Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that the right hon. Member for Huntingdon has not announced his resignation as Prime Minister. They are two separate offices. Whatever the ins and outs of this, it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a different point of order. Will you take this opportunity to condemn the growing practice of making important statements about key constitutional issues, regardless of the niceties as to whether someone is the Prime Minister or the leader of a party, to press conferences rather than to the House of Commons?

Madam Deputy Speaker: My understanding is that this matter does not relate precisely to the House of Commons.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is not the information that we have just heard unprecedented in modern political times? I have searched my memory, to the extent that I can, and I do not believe that such an event has happened before this century. Does not that raise some fundamental issues which it would be right for the House to have an opportunity to consider? Is there some mechanism available by which these issues can be discussed in that part of the day's business which is still available, in view of the speedy resolution of the matter with which we have just been concerned?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already indicated clearly that this is not a matter on which the Chair can rule. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Banks: It is a different point in that you have the power to suspend the House for a period of time during which discussions could take place. These are grave matters and it is ludicrous that the House has no opportunity to discuss them. I understand your difficulties, but a short suspension at this time would be helpful for us all.

Madam Deputy Speaker: My overriding duty in the Chair is to ensure that the business before the House on this day is transacted.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all appreciate the difficulties that face you. I hope that you will also appreciate the difficulties facing hon. Members and Ministers who might want to participate in debates today. Given the news that we have just heard, there is a serious question about the authority that Ministers have to come to the Dispatch Box and speak on behalf of the Government and the Prime Minister.
There is a complete sense of disintegration within the Government, not just from the Prime Minister but from other Ministers. All of us who participate in debates, whether from the Opposition or the Government Benches, have noticed that in recent weeks. During the remaining proceedings in the House today, we need to be sure that Ministers who speak do so with the authority of the Prime Minister and that clearly is not the case.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe that the hon. Lady was not in the Chamber when I made my earlier announcement about the fact that the position of Prime Minister has not been renounced and so for Ministers it all goes on.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is this a different point of order?

Mr. O'Brien: Yes. When the leadership of a country is in such disarray, as it obviously is today, surely it is a matter for the House. You are entirely right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that being leader of a party is different from being the Prime Minister. Nevertheless, it is of enormous importance to the public and to hon. Members that other countries that may be looking on will see that the Government appear to be disintegrating from the top. Surely that matter should be the subject of an urgent debate. Perhaps there should be an Adjournment of the House to consider the matters and—subsequently—a debate on these enormously important developments.

Mrs. Taylor: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It would greatly assist hon. Members if the Leader of the House were to make a statement to explain the situation. I understand that the Leader of the House is in the building and it would be helpful to

everyone if he were to make a statement. If he cannot be present at this precise moment, perhaps the only option open to the House is a brief suspension of the sitting so that hon. Members may ascertain all the circumstances and so that Conservative Members, who have been coming in and out of the Chamber for the past few minutes trying to find out what is happening, may have their position clarified as well.
Such a degree of uncertainty is obviously very unsatisfactory, not least because there have been many opportunities during the afternoon for the Prime Minister to make the statement inside this House that he has just made outside it. When the Prime Minister and other Ministers do not have the courage to say in the House what they are prepared to say outside it, the role of the House is placed in doubt. Perhaps other people can throw light on the matter. The Leader of the House—at least—should make a statement and the sitting should be suspended until that statement is made.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already said that I see no reason to suspend the sitting. I have no doubt that those sitting on the Treasury Bench will have heard the points made and—presumably—will be able to work through the usual channels. I have nothing further to add. I cannot allow this to develop into a general debate.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I need to know that it is a different point of order.

Mr. Austin-Walker: It is a different point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Clearly you were not aware of the situation about which hon. Members have spoken. I wish to know whether Madam Speaker was informed and, indeed, whether Her Majesty the Queen was informed about the situation because it raises a poignant constitutional point. Can Madam Speaker come to the House to say whether she was made aware of the situation?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is entirely a matter for Madam Speaker. It is not for me to tell her what she should or should not do.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The House obviously understands your difficulty. It is a very sudden announcement. Madam Speaker ought to come to the House and use her authority to explain what is required under such circumstances. In that case, would you, Madam Deputy Speaker, consider a brief suspension of the sitting so that Madam Speaker may come to the House, which is her right and her duty as I see it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is entirely a matter for Madam Speaker whether she returns to the Chair. It is not for me to send for her.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I accept and understand the point that you are making. We are in an extremely unusual and difficult position. In view of the concern in the House and throughout the nation, could a message be sent immediately to Madam Speaker to ask whether she could come to the Chamber so that the matter may be clarified?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Clearly, if the matter is of concern to hon. Members, the usual channels should be


invoked. I see representatives of the usual channels present. If it is their wish to use such means, they should get on with it.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have made a helpful and constructive suggestion. As the hon. Member responsible for my party's participation in the usual channels, we and the official Opposition would certainly like the opportunity to have discussions through the usual channels. Would not the best way to effect that immediately be to suspend the sitting for a short period to enable discussions to take place?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not regard that as necessary. Discussions can take place between the usual channels while the House is sitting.

Mr. Harry Barnes: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. With regard to the business of the House, the Crown Agents Bill [Lords] has been discussed and the Adjournment debate was about to start. Am I correct? In those circumstances, the House is likely to rise early and there may not be later opportunities to raise urgent matters on subsequent points of order. Would not it therefore be advisable to suspend the sitting?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman disappoints me. I have been amazed at the ingenuity of hon. Members in keeping business going when they choose to do so.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The resignation of a Prime Minister, a leader of a party in power, is obviously enormously important. The Prime Minister has recently answered questions in the House and while points of order have been raised with you, Ministers, obviously quite perplexed by what has happened, have been running in and out of the Chamber. Has not great discourtesy been shown to the House? Announcements have—it appears—been made regardless of the House. Is it proper for a Prime Minister to answer questions at Prime Minister's Question Time and not to mention such things? Is it correct procedure for a Prime Minister to resign as leader of his party and, therefore, place his position as Prime Minister in some jeopardy, without—it appears—properly consulting Ministers who are designated as Ministers by this House—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have heard enough. I have already made it clear that there is a constitutional distinction to be drawn between the leader of a party and the Prime Minister. I have—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made it very clear that this is not a matter for the Chair or one on which I can intervene. I have made a practical suggestion that the usual channels should get together and Make any decisions that they wish. In the meantime, I have a duty to ensure that the business of this House continues.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The argument has been put by several Opposition Members that the Prime Minister has resigned as leader of the Conservative party and that he should have made that announcement to the House of Commons.

With respect to those who have put that argument, they fail to make a distinction which lies at the very heart of our system of Government. Any Minister must learn very early in his career as a Minister the difference between party business, where he is not entitled—[Interruption.] This applies to any Minister at any level in the Government. Any Minister must learn the difference between party business, in which he is not entitled to the support of the civil service machine and on which he is accountable to a party audience, not to a House of Commons or Government audience. That is a fundamental distinction at the heart of any Minister's discharge of his responsibilities.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has observed that central distinction. He has made the announcement outside this House about his status as the leader of the Conservative party because he is not accountable to this House for it. It does not affect his status as the Queen's First Minister, in which capacity he continues to answer as Prime Minister to this House and in which capacity he leads a Government in which all those sitting on the Treasury Bench continue to serve as members of the Queen's Government.—[interruption]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I expect to have courtesy and consideration in the House. I will certainly hear no more points of order if there are ructions and rumpuses.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Secretary of State for National Heritage has raised an important point. Of course we all appreciate the difference between being leader of the Conservative party and being Prime Minister. The fact is, however, that although the Prime Minister may have resigned, for the time being or permanently, as leader of the Conservative party, he is still Prime Minister of this country and his first obligation ought to be to come to the House of Commons. The Prime Minister is responsible to the House of Commons; he has spoken in the House today.
It is clearly the case that Conservative Members, including members of the 1922 Committee, have come to the Chamber since the matter was raised because they do not know what is happening. This situation is not good for Parliament and not good for the country. Why cannot the Prime Minister or the Leader of the House come to the House? We have time available. It would be foolish to move on to the Adjournment before we get a clear statement to the House.
What concerns hon. Members is the fact that the Prime Minister is treating this House with contempt. The position of the Prime Minister is not simply an internal matter for a few members of the Conservative party; it matters to this country as a whole. There are implications for this country as a whole and there are implications for any international negotiations in which the Prime Minister or other Ministers are involved over the next few weeks. It simply is not good enough for members of the Conservative party to think that all this can be done behind closed doors without Parliament being informed and without any repercussions for the country as a whole. This House demands and this House needs a clear statement.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already made the position quite clear from the point of view of the


Chair. I can deal only with matters that affect the Chair. The point of view that has been expressed has been clearly expressed; it has now been repeated on a number of occasions. I have made the only suggestion that I can make, namely, that the usual channels get together and see whether they can make some arrangements. It is not a matter for me and I cannot allow what would turn into virtually a full-scale debate on this.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that in none of the changes of the Labour leadership and in no change of the Tory leadership over the past 20 years during which I have been in the House, has there been a debate? Should not the Labour party realise that the big difference is not between being leader of the Tory party and being Prime Minister, but between being leader of the Labour party and Prime Minister? There has been a gap of 17 years and, judging by Labour's behaviour today, there is likely to be a gap of another 17 years.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Banks: I ask whether you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of what is going on here and in view of the possibility that good order in the House is in jeopardy, would be prepared to suspend the sitting. Surely you have the power to do so. That would give everyone the opportunity to have discussions outside rather than to have these exchanges across the Floor.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have told the House already—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here at the time—that I do not see fit to adjourn the House. I have a duty to the agenda before us to ensure that it is completed.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It may be helpful for me, as one of the Conservative Members who has come down into the Chamber, to explain to the shadow Leader of the House that I was in no doubt about what had happened. I came into the Chamber because I saw that something untoward was happening here. It seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that what you have ruled is entirely appropriate.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. There was a rather bizarre contribution, in the form of a point of order, from the Secretary of State for National Heritage in which he appeared to confuse the role of the Conservative party and the Prime Minister, acting as though this was a one-party state where the office of Prime Minister was within the gift of the Conservative party. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that you have been shown grave discourtesy in terms of the way in which the Government have behaved this afternoon? This House and, more importantly, the public on every street in this country have been shown discourtesy. The Conservative party plays fast and loose with these important issues. Should not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, insist that the Prime Minister now comes to the House to make a statement about his resignation and about what plans there are either for his replacement or, more hopefully, for an imminent general election?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The Secretary of State for National Heritage made at rather greater length the point I made earlier—that it is important constitutionally to draw a distinction between the leadership of a party and the office of Prime Minister.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a convention of the constitution that the leader of the party with the majority in the House of Commons is Prime Minister, appointed by the Queen on the advice of Privy Councillors, usually the outgoing Prime Minister? Is it not the case that when a party's leader has been the Prime Minister, on no occasion since the second world war has that party's leadership been changed without notice having been given to Her Majesty?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to know what advice has been tendered to Her Majesty.

Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As one of the hon. Members who listened to the Prime Minister making his statement at 5 o'clock tonight, live on Sky television, I distinctly heard the Prime Minister make the point that he was resigning as the leader of the Conservative party, but that he would be a candidate in the forthcoming election for the leadership of the Conservative party. He also added that if he lost, he would immediately resign as Prime Minister. Given that he made it clear that he was only a challenger and that he might lose, and given the possibility of a new Prime Minister, is it not important that the House should be suspended to allow the Leader of the House to come here to clarify the matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I did not have the advantage of hearing the statement. Even so, it seems to reiterate the point that has already been made. The Prime Minister remains as Prime Minister of this country.

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Opposition sometimes consider that there is an awful lot of humbug about the constitutional relationship between the Government and the monarch. The Tory party is selective in that, when it suits it, it ignores that relationship. There arc precedents. Lord Callaghan, Lord Wilson and others always said that they had advised the Queen of the fact that they intended to trigger an election in their political parties. Those are the ground rules by which they played. We have a right to know from the Prime Minister whether he has informed the head of state that there will be an election in the principal party. After all, being leader of that party gives the mandate to be Prime Minister. We need to know whether Buckingham palace has been informed and what its response has been. There are constitutional precedents for this. When Lord Wilson announced that he was stepping down as Prime Minister—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point at some length. I have already told the House that I do not know what has passed between the Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen. I cannot know and it is certainly not my responsibility in the Chair. This matter has now been sufficiently aired. I propose to take no more points of order on it and I will move on.

Several Hon. Members: I beg to move, That strangers do withdraw.
Notice being taken that strangers were present, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 143 (Withdrawal of strangers from House), put forthwith the Question, That strangers do withdraw:—
The House proceeded to a Division:—

Mr. Alan Duncan: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that four Opposition Members are declining to come out of the Lobby and are delaying the vote.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If that be the case, I have my remedies to hand.

The House having divided: Ayes 10, Noes 216.

Division No. 172]
[5.28 pm


AYES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mahon, Alice


Cox, Tom
O'Hara, Edward


George, Bruce
Tellers for the Ayes:


Gordon, Mildred
Mr. Harry Barnes and


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Mr. Peter Pike.


NOES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coe, Sebastian


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Cohen, Harry


Allen, Graham
Colvin, Michael


Amess, David
Congdon, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Conway, Derek


Arbuthnot, James
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ashby, David
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Denham, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Barron, Kevin
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bates, Michael
Dowd, Jim


Batiste, Spencer
Duncan, Alan


Battle, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Bayley, Hugh
Dunn, Bob


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Elletson, Harold


Beggs, Roy
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Bell, Stuart
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Berry, Roger
Faber, David


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fabricant, Michael


Boateng, Paul
Forman, Nigel


Booth, Hartley
Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)


Boswell, Tim
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Forth, Eric


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Foster, Don (Bath)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gallie, Phil


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gapes, Mike


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gardiner, Sir George


Burns, Simon
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butler, Peter
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gillan, Cheryl


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)


Chidgey, David
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clappison, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grocott, Bruce





Hague, William
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Rendel, David


Hannam, Sir John
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Robathan, Andrew


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hoey, Kate
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Hoon, Geoffrey
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Horam, John
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hutton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jessel, Toby
Sims, Roger


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Soames, Nicholas


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Soley, Clive


Khabra, Piara S
Spearing, Nigel


Kirkwood, Archy
Spellar, John


Knapman, Roger
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Spring, Richard


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Legg, Barry
Stem, Michael


Leigh, Edward
Streeter, Gary


Lennmox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Sweeney, Walter


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Thomason, Roy


Luff, Peter
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Macdonald, Calum
Timms, Stephen


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


MacKay, Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Mackinlay, Andrew
Trend, Michael


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Trimble, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Madden, Max
Vaz, Keith


Maddock, Diana
Viggers, Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Malone, Gerald
Wallace, James


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Waller, Gary


Merchant, Piers
Ward, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wareing, Robert N


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Watts, John


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Wells, Bowen


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Whitney, Ray


Morley, Elliot
Whittingdale, John


Mudie, George
Wicks, Malcolm


Neubert, Sir Michael
Willetts, David


Norris, Steve
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)
Yeo, Tim


Olner, Bill
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Pawsey, James



Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It arises from the advice that you gave us a short time before the Division, when you said that the best way to proceed might be for the usual channels to have some discussions to see whether the Leader of the House was willing to make a statement. During the Division, such discussions did take place, but the Leader of the House indicated that he was not willing to make a statement because he regarded the resignation


of the Prime Minister as leader of the Conservative party as nothing to do with this House. I do not think that the country as a whole will think that this is just a cosy matter for members of the Conservative party.
The matter raises some important questions about the workings of Parliament during the next few weeks. If the Prime Minister believes that he does not have the confidence of his own party, he clearly does not have the confidence of the House. There are questions for this House because we need to know with what authority Ministers will speak from the Dispatch Box. We need to know when Ministers are speaking as Ministers and when they are speaking as candidates in the Conservative party leadership election. We saw during the Division that several potential stalking horses were present. If we cannot—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This is now becoming a general debate, and the hon. Lady's point is not a matter of order for the Chair.

Mrs. Taylor: If we cannot have a statement from the Leader of the House because he refuses to give one, and if we cannot have a statement from the Prime Minister because he also refuses to give one, may we have a statement from the President of the Board of Trade?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The matter has been thrashed out exhaustively by means of points of order. There are no more points of order that I can deal with, and it is now my duty to ensure that the next business is considered.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order on the Prime Minister's statement at his press conference.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not taking any more points of order. [Interruption.] Members must sit down.

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] Mr. Pike, sit down.

Mr. Pike: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on the Standing Orders of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It must be a totally different matter. I am taking no more points of order on the Prime Minister's statement.

Mr. Pike: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?

Mr. Pike: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance regarding the Standing Orders of the House. We have a procedure for debating urgent and important issues under Standing Order No. 20. Do you consider that this matter is urgent and important and should therefore be accepted for a debate under Standing Order No. 20?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Standing Order No. 20 cannot be used in the way in which the hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A little while ago I received a letter from the Prime Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary informing me that the Prime Minister would be unable to answer questions on Tuesday 27 June as he would be attending the European Council in Cannes. Quite apart from the prudence of the Prime Minister being out of Britain next week, may I ask whether you have received any indication that the Prime Minister has revised his plans and no longer intends to ask the Lord President of the Council to answer questions on his behalf next Tuesday?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not the responsibility of the Chair.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Spearing, on what I trust will be a different point of order.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. When an unexpected matter of common knowledge arises which you regard as of sufficient significance, is it in order for an hon. Member to apply to you for permission to move the adjournment of the debate?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly possible, but whether it is accepted by the Chair is another matter.

Mr. Spearing: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In that case, may I ask permission to move such a motion for the following reason? The stability of the Government of Her Majesty depends on the stability of the Privy Council and, in particular, on its sub-committee known as the Cabinet. The Prime Minister is First Lord of the Treasury, and in that role he discharges many duties, including that of attending the important conference of which my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has acquainted the House. In view of the representational difficulties which may arise at that conference in the context of the full backing of the majority in the House, such as it is, for the conference and the carrying on of the business of the Queen's Government—

Mr. David Ashby: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Spearing: I am on a point of order already.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If there is one thing that I cannot deal with, it is two points of order at the same time.

Mr. Spearing: It is clear from the points of order during our previous debate and subsequently that there is some uncertainty. Pending a statement from the Leader of the House, who ought to be here, has been requested to be here and has not said that he will make a statement, I beg leave to move such a motion.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I am prepared to grant it.

Mr. Spearing: I therefore move the Adjournment of the House to discuss—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Is it the hon. Gentleman's wish that the debate be now adjourned?

Mr. Spearing: I beg to move that the debate on this matter be adjourned pending a statement from the Leader


of the House. If there is no such statement, the pros and cons of the uncertainty will not be laid before the House. Other hon. Members may wish to give reasons for the motion, such as the stability of the Government and the majority that they can command in the House being in question.
It is clear that the instability in the Government ranks is not sudden. It is as if a grumbling appendix has been worsening among Conservative Members for a number of weeks. The grumbling has caused a good deal of comment in the press and has affected not only the position of the Prime Minister; there is also a great deal of speculation about the position of the Foreign Secretary, who is due at the Cannes conference in a few days' time. Without some sort of stability between the Prime Minister, whoever he or she may be, and the Foreign Secretary, can Her Majesty's Government—still less the people of this country—be properly represented at that conference?
The agenda at the Cannes conference is of prime constitutional importance. Yesterday there was a six-hour debate in the House about many of the issues to be raised at Cannes. The matters to be discussed are not dissociated from the divisions in the ranks of Government supporters—if they are indeed Government supporters—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. May I have a little decorum and quiet?

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that it is not just a matter of the Government's credibility in their external relations, because the hiatus that will persist over the next two weeks will have profound internal implications for the country and for the business of the House? For example, it may delay the Nolan committee which is considering allegations in respect of matters which are vital to hon. Members. One consequential if not intended effect must be that.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The domestic consequences for legislation or what happens in the House is of prime importance to many citizens. Just a short while ago the Leader of the House announced next week's business. What guarantee can there be that that business will proceed? What guarantee have the general public that representations to their Members of Parliament over the weekend at their advice surgeries, in newspapers and in letters will be aired next week?
It is not unknown for Cabinets and Leaders of the House to change the business. We do not know whether the Leader of the House may be a candidate for leader of his party. Sponsors of certain legislation set down for next week might be thought to be enhancing themselves by an appearance at the Dispatch Box and could thus receive undue publicity. We just do not know.

Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spearing: If the hon. Gentleman intends to ask further questions, I will gladly give way.

Mr. Ashby: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's views on Europe, does he not feel that he would be far safer in the hands of the present Prime Minister at the Cannes conference than in the hands of his leader, who would sell this country down the river?

Mr. Spearing: I do not think that the leadership of my party is in any way in question. The big question is the

leadership of the Conservative party. I will therefore not be tempted down the beguiling road indicated by the hon. Gentleman. As we know from those who were present at yesterday's debate, if an objective observer—I stress the word "objective"—were to compare the stances of my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and that of the Foreign Secretary, who respectively outlined Opposition and Government policies in that debate, I am not too sure that the distinction would be that obvious. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman's point is irrelevant.
Central to the events of the past hour or so is the fact that the abscess which has apparently being growing and festering and which has now burst among the ranks of Conservative Members was started by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath). There was division in the Conservative party on that matter from the day I entered the House—25 years ago last Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who entered the House on that same day, has ample evidence and full knowledge of that festering.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: The Prime Minister said at his press conference that he had resigned as Tory party leader. That means that the Tory party is leaderless. The important thing to remember is that that is not enough. If the Prime Minister has lost the confidence of the governing party, he has a duty to go to the Queen and ask to be allowed to call a general election so that the country can decide. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the only way out of this impasse?

Mr. Spearing: Constitutionally, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know of no reason why the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), if he so wishes, should not get into his motor car, go to see Her Majesty and seek a Dissolution. In the House we have to be careful about the Crown and I should not like to speculate about what Her Majesty would say. However, I suggest that the Prime Minister has been so mobbed, as it were, by differing views, so provoked and discomfited and, I would not say exhausted, but has had so much difficulty balancing the two views in his party that it is hard for him to carry on the business of government. Indeed, the fact that there have been two views has clearly interrupted the Prime Minister's efficiency in the conduct of government.

Dr. Robert Spink: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spearing: I shall give way later. I am answering my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). The Prime Minister has been so discomfited that, like a person surrounded by bees or wasps, he has picked up his swatter and said, "Look, if you don't stop, I will go to Her Majesty and you can all go to the electorate."

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In moving the motion, my hon. Friend has several times drawn attention to the situation of the Queen and the issue of whether the Prime Minister should go to her. What powers has the House to ask for an opinion from, or send a message to, the Queen as to exactly what she ought to do in this situation? Does this not illustrate the problem of having a monarch rather than an elected president to deal with such problems?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I very much doubt whether Her Majesty needs the detailed advice of the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover.

Mr. Skinner: I said that the Prime Minister had a duty to go to the Queen, but he had better wait another half an hour or so as she will not be back from Ascot yet.

Mr. Spearing: I wish to develop that point as it is of constitutional importance. If we were in the position of the monarch—you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as our No. 2 representative to the monarch can imagine the position—what would we see? Her Majesty would survey the broken state of the Conservative party.

Mr. Clive Soley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spearing: I will give way in a moment.
Unlike the position with the left and right wings of Mr. Wilson's party, the Conservative party is unstable. The Queen might well say, looking at the opinion polls, that it was her duty to grant a Dissolution. It is not a matter on which it is for us to advise Her Majesty in the sense of giving a corporate view from the House, although it would be possible to move a suitable motion. It is a matter of the advice of the people in respect of the Government.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend will note that the Conservative Benches are now denuded. Does he think that that is because Conservative Members are already outside laying their bets and doing their canvassing? In the circumstances, does that not support my hon. Friend's excellent motion and suggest that we should all go out and put a few bets on?

Mr. Spearing: Not yet, because we have yet to ventilate—and to a much greater extent than I have been yet been capable of—the plight not only of the Conservative party but of Her Majesty's Government and, therefore, the British people, who are currently leaderless.

Mr. David Winnick: My hon. Friend has referred to the position in respect of a general election. Constitutionally, that should of course take place in view of the Government's position. However, is my hon. Friend at all surprised that with the situation which exists in the country, with hardly a single Tory seat being held in by-elections, the Prime Minister simply refuses to go to the country because he knows what the result would be? Is that not a conspiracy against the British people to deny them the right to elect another Government? We should give them their democratic rights instead of going through the farce of the Prime Minister trying to save his job by having an internal election? What respect does he show to the House of Commons by refusing to come and make a statement?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members in their excitement that they should be addressing me rather than other hon. Members.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) makes a fascinating speculation. I suspect that it is not a matter of disrespect but of desperation.
I have more suggestions about what Conservative Members are doing. They are either grouping together around various of their right hon. Friends and getting their party leadership election machines ready, or perhaps they are hastening back to their constituencies for the very possibility that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay).

Mr. Mackinlay: Does my hon. Friend recall the statement a few moments ago by the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who strained to distinguish between the roles of Conservative leader and Prime Minister? Is it not fair to draw the attention of the House—and, indeed, your attention, Madam Deputy Speaker—to the fact that the announcement was made from No. 10 Downing street and not from Conservative central office? That illustrates and buttresses the fact that the Government always confuse the Conservative party and Britain when it suits them. When they find themselves in the mire, they try to make a distinction. For far too long the Government have tried to imply that the Conservative party represents Britain, but when it causes them embarrassment they try to make a distinction.
The fact that the Prime Minister made his announcement in the grounds of No. 10 Downing street conflicts with the rules that he laid down for Ministers that such places are not to be used for party political purposes. He should have done it from central office. The fact that it was done in Downing street emphasises the fact that either he or the Leader of the House should be here to make a statement.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful again for the constitutional suggestions of my hon. Friends. One of the purposes of debate in the House, all too frequently ignored, is that we gather together the totality of human knowledge and political wisdom and distil it in Hansard to be put on record for ever and aye.

Mr. Soley: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock is right. I recall that at the time of general elections our late right hon. Friend Lord Wilson, then Mr. Wilson, first went to the office of his party, which in those days was Transport house in Smith square. The problem for the Prime Minister has been demonstrated by certain constitutional matters relating to expenditure and responsibility for debt. The Conservatives cannot run their own party, let alone the country. Who and what is the Conservative party? So far as I can see, it is the single person of the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend was right to point out the constitutional anomaly whereby the chairman of the Conservative party is not elected by anyone but appointed by the Prime Minister. Perhaps the Prime Minister has been discomfited by the performance of his party chairman.

Dr. Spink: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: Give way to a lonely Tory.

Mr. Spearing: I see that the hon. Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) is anxious to intervene.

Dr. Spink: This is the poorest political performance that I have observed from the Labour party. The hon.


Member is floundering as well as flannelling. The fact is that the Prime Minister has made a courageous move. It is a very clever move and one as a result of which he will win. It will give him the confidence to go on and to continue to run the country, deliver growth with low inflation and win the next election. The Opposition do not like it because their fox has been shot.

Mr. Spearing: The suggestion that I am floundering is very novel. I have been wonderfully sustained in my speech by my hon. Friends, which is more than can be said for the Prime Minister. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley), who is my own Member of Parliament.

Mr. Soley: I have been seeking to help my hon. Friend on a constitutional matter. As I understand it, we do not need to trouble the Queen—she can stay at Ascot until the last train leaves. The matter depends on whether a majority can be commanded by the Prime Minister in the House. The proper route would have been for the Prime Minister to call for a vote of confidence here in the House, but his problem would then be that he would not know which way to vote.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The great difference between the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party is that the majority of the party in the country and in the House behind the Leader of the Opposition is massive compared with the divisions and splits among the Conservatives. One can only imagine the coming weeks in politics and the band-width of possibilities this weekend.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: My question is prompted by the very fair-minded answer that I received from the Prime Minister today to a question about Brent Spar. My hon. Friend is a decent fair-minded man. Has he no sympathy whatever at a personal level for a tormented and distressed Prime Minister?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend ingeniously ventilated the problem of Brent Spar during Prime Minister's Question Time this afternoon. Despite the cheers from the Conservatives, the affair is an enormous embarrassment to the Government. Had the Prime Minister got his way, or had he been wiser, environmental policies relating to the health of the sea would perhaps have been such that the Government would not have allowed such a terrible infection of the deep sea ever to be contemplated.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend will have heard the point of order that I raised a little while ago relating to the role of the monarch in these circumstances. The real problem is that the Prime Minister resigned as leader of the Conservative party and said that he will fight in the leadership election, but we, as elected representatives of the people, cannot set out constitutional guidelines about how things should be done. I suspect that the Government will try to manoeuvre the business of the House so that there can be no discussion.
If we had a head of state who was accountable to the elected representatives, there would have to be clear constitutional guidelines about whether we should have a general election or a vote of confidence, instead of matters being decided in the murky halls of power as they are at present.

Mr. Spearing: The structure of power in this country rests—or should rest—entirely in the Chamber and the Lobbies on either side. I recall that when the last Government fell on a vote of confidence—by only one vote, but that was enough—Lord Callaghan, as he is now, sprang to the Dispatch Box and said that he was going to the palace tomorrow. That is what the Prime Minister should do now because he has lost the confidence of his party and the country.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Does my right hon. Friend remember that, during the visit of the G7 nations to Halifax, Nova Scotia, the Prime Minister responded to some questions by saying that he had a coalition Government? Does my hon. Friend think that there is a possibility that the Prime Minister might apply to join the Labour party?

Mr. Spearing: That is perhaps taking things a little far. Being a Londoner, and acquainted with south London, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)—we are both, of course, knowledgeable about east London—I have often noticed in the Prime Minister a certain understanding of and sympathy with ordinary people, which I do not always find in the party that he leads. I have a suspicion that some of his difficulties and some of the distrust that he has improperly attracted from members of his own party might be because, behind everything else, there is a lurking and, I would suggest, praiseworthy sensitivity to some of the things that ordinary people experience and which he has experienced but which all too few of his hon. Friends have experienced. I believe that the British public feel that strongly, but it has added to his difficulties.

Mr. Tony Banks: My hon. Friend is a well known constitutional expert and we appreciate his knowledge.

Mr. Ashby: Rubbish.

Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman knows a lot about rubbish, but nothing about the constitution.
The head of state usually calls on the leader of the party which commands a majority in the House to form a Government, but there is no longer a leader of the majority party. In those circumstances, would it not be up to the head of state to summon a Conservative Member whom she thought able to command a majority in the House? I understand that she is on her way back from Ascot; might she not at this very moment be contemplating sending for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, who has already made an appearance?

Mr. Spearing: That is not merely a hypothetical question, but something with which we may have to deal in the next few days. It is possible for the Conservative party to have a quick election, but—

Mr. Gyles Brandreth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Spearing: Not yet—I want to finish this point.
Because of the lack of confidence, which has been clearly demonstrated by the events of today, it is possible that the Prime Minister might advise Her Majesty to send for Mr. X or someone else. It may have been forgotten but, not too many years ago—after the election in February 1974—there was a little conversation when the


answer, given formally or informally, was, "Yes Madam, I will see if I can." That person then had to ascertain whether there was a majority.
I can imagine Her Majesty calling a certain right hon. Gentleman—it could be someone whom anyone here could name—but he might not be able to say at that stage, "Yes, Madam, I will" and then kiss hands, actually or metaphorically. That right hon. Gentleman would have to go to the Committee Room upstairs and see whether he could command a majority among the Conservatives. I am not sure whether any particular candidate—or, at least, any masculine candidate that I can think of—would necessarily be able to do so. If he could not, the House would have to be dissolved or—I have not yet worked out the mathematics of this—it might be possible that a combination of other parties would be more in a position to command consistent support, as happened with the Lib-Lab Government.

Mr. Frank Cook: May I draw my hon. Friend back to the invitation tendered to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who pleaded for sympathy for the Prime Minister because of the rebuff that he suffered from an oil company? Does my hon. Friend think that this gives a new meaning to the phrase, "Go Well, Go Shell"?

Mr. Spearing: Alas, the oil wells of the North sea did not let Britain go well despite the thousands of millions of pounds worth of oil that were gushing out of the North sea, as is the case with gas now. That gas is publicly owned although it may be privately distributed and pirated. As a maritime country, we should pay much greater attention to the well-being of our marine life, as my hon. Friend, with his knowledge and experience, will confirm. The disgraceful incident to which he refers is not a good example of a responsible attitude.

Mr. Brandreth: I am listening carefully as the hon. Gentleman manages to pack his two-minute speech into three quarters of an hour. Can he tell the House how his own reselection is going? Is he making any progress on that front?

Mr. Donald Anderson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) winds up his speech on this unprecedented constitutional crisis, will you confirm the nature of the current proceedings? Is it the case that my hon. Friend is initiating a debate on the Adjournment which can continue until at least 10 pm so that the House can have an opportunity in the remainder of the evening to make its views felt on this unprecedented crisis?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The position is that the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend is moving a motion that the current debate—not the House—be adjourned. That, of course, is debatable and could continue. It is not for me to say how long it might continue.

Mr. Madden: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Presumably, if an application for a closure were made to you in the course of the debate, you would consider that matter. If you decided that the closure should be put, the House would be asked to vote on a closure motion. If that were carried, would it have the

effect of adjourning the House, or would you then have to consider a further application for the Adjournment of the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I must make it clear that we are not debating the Adjournment of the House. If the adjournment were carried, it would not mean the Adjournment of the House. It would be the adjournment of the current business.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Ashby: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you would give me your guidance. In considering the closure, or any application for a closure, do you take into account the fact that a speech is being made which is demeaning Parliament? Do you take into account the fact that remarks are being made by people who present themselves as worthy people of great substance and age but who are behaving like juvenile children? Or do you simply do it on the basis of how long this farce continues?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I take all manner of factors into account, but I do not share those with the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Bryan Davies: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are obviously in an unprecedented position. Constitutionally, in the circumstances forecast previously when people have suggested that a hung Parliament might be the indecisive result of a general election and therefore the obligation would be on the monarch and her advisers as to whom to summon to form a Government, it has been contended that those advisers take soundings of Members of Parliament and the people concerned with that position. In circumstances such as these, when Parliament is sitting and the monarch must reach a judgment on the fact that the present holder of the seals of office as Prime Minister is not the leader of the majority party of the House because he has resigned as such, should not the House have the opportunity to give its advice to the monarch? Should there not be provision for a debate in which we might reach a conclusion on that matter?

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I hope that we shall not return to the series of points of order that we had before. The House has the opportunity to have this debate on the adjournment of the present debate. I ask the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to resume his speech.

Mr. Spearing: I hope that my hon. Friends will allow me to conclude my speech without further interruptions, although I am grateful for the matters that they have mentioned.
With regard to the point of order raised a few moments ago, it is my understanding that if the closure is moved and is successful we proceed to the Adjournment debate to be initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) and the business on the Crown Agents would therefore be terminated—unless the closure was defeated, in which case that debate would be resumed until 10 o'clock. In the circumstances of the day, perhaps only the business of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North might be appropriate.
I wish to conclude on perhaps an even more serious note than the future of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Brandreth: Your own future.

Mr. Spearing: No—I am worried about the future of the House. I will leave the—[Interruption]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I wish to hear the hon. Gentleman. That becomes difficult, particularly when much of the noise seems to be coming from the hon. Gentleman's friends.

Mr. Spearing: Conservative Members should contemplate very seriously, because they are in Government, the fact that the difficulties which have existed in their party for the past few years—which started, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover and I know only too well, long ago—arise from the acknowledgment by the Crown, on the advice of the House, of certain very testing obligations in respect of domestic matters as well as those abroad: I refer to a series of treaties, the obligations of which are essentially destabilising to any party in the House because no party can any longer go with certainty to the electorate and place before them its full, free choice of legislation.
I shall not take that argument further now—it would not be opportune to do so—save to say that I believe that the difficulties of the Conservative party arise directly from that matter, and that that matter would be there for any Government, of any party, to solve. I hope that this incident alone may perhaps illustrate that, as I envisage Members on the Opposition side of the House moving to the Government side of the House after the next general election.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not intend to speak at the same length as the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). I believe that his last remarks were correct; that the split over Europe in the Labour party is as significant as the split in the Tory party. It is fair to say that. It is also true that, were we to have a Labour Government, they would probably need a majority of about 100 before they could outnumber their European rebels.
It would be unfair to say that the Labour party is wrongly using this opportunity. When one has a Labour party in Parliament whose members cannot stand in the Tory leadership election, which cannot nominate anyone for the Tory leadership election and which cannot vote in it, it feels left out.
The Labour party is used to its own system, which allows trade union leaders to decide 70 per cent.—or, shortly, 50 per cent.—who its leader should be. It has also introduced a new constitutional position whereby the leader of the Labour party becomes involved in who should be the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union.
If I may digress on that for a moment, the Labour leader's pet candidate, Jack Dromey, said in his election speech that he wanted the Transport and General Workers Union to be a first-class trade union, not a second-class political party. Neither Jack Dromey nor the leader of the Labour party said whether the expression, "a second-class political party", applied to the Transport and General Workers Union or to the Labour party. It had to apply to one or the other.
When we consider whether the debate on Third Reading of the Crown Agents Bill should be adjourned—

Mr. Kevin Barron: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether he is likely to support the Secretary of State for Health as a candidate for the next election in the Tory party.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I think that we had better get back to the Question before us, and that is that the debate be now adjourned. Of course it is a fairly tight motion, and I shall be listening with due attention.

Mr. Bottomley: As grandson of a former senior Crown agent, as I explained during an earlier stage of the Crown Agents Bill—there may have been a different Deputy Speaker in the Chair when I spoke about that—I want to continue my arguments as to why the debate on Third Reading should not be adjourned. It would be reasonably fair to be allowed one or two sentences to follow the 40 minutes from the hon. Member for Newham, South.
There is another relevant point. I was elected to the House in a by-election in 1975 and that marked the start of the loss of the previous Labour Government's majority in this place. From 1975 to 1979, Labour was propped up in government by the Liberals, the Ulster Unionists and by other nationalists. The Labour party has plenty of experience of trying to remain in government without a majority. In 1976 the Labour party changed its leader. There was no debate on the Floor of the House of Commons when Harold Wilson resigned.

Mr. Skinner: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to Harold Wilson's decision to resign in 1976, he can draw no parallel with the current situation because Harold Wilson made it clear that he was resigning not merely as party leader but also as Prime Minister and that he would remain as a caretaker Prime Minister in the intervening period until an election was called and held and his successor found. There was no question of Harold Wilson's doing what the present Prime Minister is trying to do: resign as Tory party leader, hang on as Prime Minister and hope that he will win the ensuing leadership election and continue as Prime Minister. He wants to have his cake and eat it. While I am on my feet, I must ask: who is the hon. Gentleman going to vote for?

Mr. Bottomley: I do not actually expect that there will be a contest. The hon. Gentleman is using the example of Harold Wilson, who stood down as Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be grateful if hon. Members addressed the Chair.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman referred to the example of Harold Wilson. Harold Wilson stopped being the Prime Minister, but that will not happen in this case. If there was no debate in 1976, we do not need a debate now. Labour Members have said for the past hour or so that they regard this matter as more important than the final stages of the Crown Agents Bill, but it is clear from the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that they do not have a leg to stand on.
I want to answer one question that was put earlier in the debate. It is wrong to argue that the hon. Member for Newham, South has not been reselected because his


constituency has changed. The fact that he has not been selected for the new constituency is something that happens in the Labour party quite often.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call Ann Jones.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: I know that it is the Wimbledon season, but tennis is not oneof my talents.
I support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) that we should adjourn the debate. I do so because of the totally unprecedented events that we have witnessed in the past hour and a half. I do not think that the public or hon. Members would understand if we were to continue with the affairs of this place as if nothing untoward had happened.
We are in a very unusual position. The House is sitting this evening, but tomorrow it is a non-sitting constituency Friday and it will not be possible to discuss any matters then—no doubt the Prime Minister took that into account when he made his decision. There is provision in the Standing Orders for the House to sit tomorrow, or on Saturday and Sunday should that prove necessary. The Government have the power to request Madam Speaker to recall Parliament, and that option is clearly open to them.
Conservative Members seem somewhat reticent when it comes to discussing the implications of the Prime Minister's decision. That seems rather strange to those of us who believe that the whole country is interested in what is going on and does not regard it as an internal matter for the Conservative party. The hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), who has now left the Chamber, accused my colleagues of demeaning Parliament by raising the subject. I think that the Prime Minister demeans Parliament when he makes statements of such importance outside the House and then ensures that no statement is made in this place.

Mr. Pike: My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The public will think it very strange that the Prime Minister stood at the Government Dispatch Box at 3·15 this afternoon and gave no indication that he was about to make an announcement of major national importance.

Mrs. Taylor: That proves that the Prime Minister is more concerned about his own position within the Conservative party than he is about respecting the rights of this House as a democratic body. His first responsibility should have been to hon. Members from all political parties who represent the people of this country. That was the Prime Minister's first and most significant mistake.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is there not another more profound and worrying point? It is not the interests of the Conservative party that the Prime Minister is seeking to serve, but his own interests. Even if he were to win a leadership contest, what essential feature would change? The Conservative party would be exactly as it was and the divisions on Europe would remain. There might be a temporary respite for the Prime Minister—he may gain something—but the Conservative party would not win anything and certainly this country would lose as a result of that process.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is correct. Today's events are the first in what could be a very long saga that

will certainly continue to the next election. The divisions within the Conservative party, which have led to those events, will not go away simply because of a leadership contest—regardless of who wins—because those divisions are too deep.

Mr. Austin-Walker: Will my hon. Friend reflect on two issues? First, there is the constitutional issue. The right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was asked by Her Majesty to form a Government on the basis that he was the leader of the majority party. He no longer holds that position. Is it not appropriate that he should go to the Queen?
Secondly, if the office of leader of the Conservative party is divorced from that of Prime Minister, will my hon. Friend reflect on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), who said that it was wholly inappropriate for the Prime Minister to use his office, Downing street and the facilities of the Prime Minister to make an announcement of a party political nature?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend's last point is absolutely correct. We shall have to ask what machinery of government was used with regard to the Prime Minister's announcement today. It has been pointed out that when Harold Wilson resigned, he did so from his party headquarters; he did not use public resources. That was the honourable thing to do. Furthermore, he did not stand in a leadership contest; he stood down permanently. Questions must be asked about how much this exercise has cost. It shows that the Prime Minister does not know the difference between his responsibilities as leader of the Conservative party and his responsibilities as Prime Minister of this country.

Mr. Skinner: There is another very intriguing problem, inasmuch as we know that there is now no leader of the Tory party. That occurred when the Prime Minister handed his seals of office as Tory party leader to none other than the chairman of the 1922 Committee, the right hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M: Fox). He has the title deeds of the Tory party at the moment. Therefore, we may assume that the chairman of the 1922 Committee is in charge of the Tory party until the election is concluded. It is a situation without parallel, when no Tory Minister will come into the Chamber to defend the position. Is it because they are all plotting? I think that it is high time that the Secretary of State for National Heritage came to the Dispatch Box to explain the exact situation.

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend reinforces the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich (Mr. Austin-Walker) raised a few moments ago.
Our current constitutional position is central to our discussions this evening. At the previous election, the Conservative party won a majority in the House and the Prime Minister led a majority Tory Government in the House. The Queen, not the chairman of the Conservative party, sent for the present Prime Minister as the leader of the majority party in Parliament. He commanded a majority at that election. Today, he does not command a majority in the House and certainly would not claim to command a majority in the country. Significant constitutional issues are being raised this evening and it is astonishing that Ministers—who may or may not be sure whether they are still members of the Government—are not willing to explain the position, as they understand it, to the House.

Mr. Winnick: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, although we are debating a matter of great importance to the House of Commons, the Leader of the House, who I assume is in the building, is not here? The right hon. Gentleman always comes to the House on any internal matter. No one could criticise him on that score. There is no sign that he is coming in. Should we take his absence to mean that he could well be a candidate in the leadership election? Has my hon. Friend any information about that?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Leader of the House would normally make a statement. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) pointed out that the Leader of the House will be answering Prime Minister's questions next Tuesday, I am not sure whether we should take that as an indication of his candidature. It is possible, but I understand that the Leader of the House is chairing a meeting of the Select Committee on Standards in Public Life that was set up some time ago. I admit that I should be there too, but given the importance of today's events, I thought that I should be in the Chamber to hear what Ministers might have to say about recent developments.
I should inform my hon. Friend that the Select Committee is due to finish its deliberations at 7 o'clock. The Leader of the House may be prepared to come to the House afterwards, to give us the benefit of his advice—and perhaps his inside information—and let us know whether he wishes to make any arrangements for the House to have a full debate on the implications of the Prime Minister's announcement.

Mr. Mackinlay: There is a danger that we are losing sight of the constitutional point, that the Prime Minister received his mandate on the basis that he was leader of the Conservative party. That has been rehearsed two or three times in the Chamber this afternoon. I intervene because the Leader of the House has not come to the Dispatch Box to answer a very important and, I believe, central question. Has the palace been advised and has the palace acquiesced in the interim arrangements? We have a right to know.
If the palace has not been approached, first, it is a discourtesy and secondly, it is arguably constitutionally incorrect. If the palace has been advised and has acquiesced, we have a right to be told. On other occasions when Prime Ministers announced that they would head a caretaker Government pending an election, the monarch as head of state not only acquiesced, but gave her approval. This time we are in a vacuum. We do not know whether the head of state has fulfilled her constitutional duty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions are traditionally short and I hope that the House will keep that tradition, even in the more excited atmosphere this evening.

Mrs. Taylor: Interventions should be short, but the House will appreciate that my hon. Friend has raised an extremely important point that he is right to emphasise. It is not just the case that the House is being left uninformed; more importantly, the public are being left uninformed. We have a responsibility to try to make sure that they know what is going on as well as we do. On that basis, my hon. Friend raises a valid point.
The other aspect of the constitutional position concerns the authority of the Prime Minister during the leadership election. He has said that he is resigning as Conservative party leader and he will seek re-election, but other candidates may—and some people believe will—enter the field. That means that when he speaks on behalf of Britain in international forums, he speaks with less authority than he would have done had he not decided to follow that course of action.
The Prime Minister told one of my hon. Friends that he will be at the meeting of the European Council in Cannes next Tuesday. What will our international colleagues think and with what authority will the Prime Minister speak on that occasion? Will he speak with the collective support of the Cabinet behind him? Will Cabinet government continue?

Mr. Skinner: There is a near precedent, when Baroness Thatcher was in almost the same position in 1990. She went to France as well. That time it was Paris. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister will go trotting off to Cannes without Bernard Ingham at his side to push all the reporters away. I can visualise the plotters on the Tory Benches running slates. There will be opinion polls. I have already been approached because the reporters got it wrong. The ones from The Sunday Times and The Observer were asking me about it. They are now asking all the Tory Members who they are going to vote for, so the whole thing will maximise itself in the next few days, with the result that the Prime Minister will lack total authority. If he takes my advice—and it is not for me to tell him—he should keep away from Cannes.

Mrs. Taylor: The Prime Minister may consider my hon. Friend's advice. I have often noticed that the Prime Minister takes great care to listen to my hon. Friend and he may well be listening now and considering that advice. However, I am not absolutely sure that it is a disadvantage for the Prime Minister not to have Bernard Ingham with him. My hon. Friend is right to say that the power, authority and position of the Prime Minister will certainly be undermined in whatever discussions he has in Cannes. Some time ago, one of his hon. Friends remarked that the Prime Minister was in office but not in power, so today's developments are only bringing to a head problems that have existed for some time. Presumably the Prime Minister has had time to consider his action.

Dr. Godman: May I ask for a misunderstanding to be cleared up? Is it not the case that once the leader of a majority party has been appointed Prime Minister, it is a continuing requirement of his occupancy of No. 10 Downing street that he remains the leader of the majority party?

Mrs. Taylor: My hon. Friend raises an important and interesting point. He is correct, although in those circumstances the Prime Minister would have to be able to command a majority in the House, however that was cobbled together. From my observations in the House and the mood of the House, it is very unlikely that the present Prime Minister or any of the possible contenders whom we have heard about so far could do that.
The other constitutional point about the authority of the Prime Minister relates to the authority of other Ministers. Clearly, if the Prime Minister is seeking a new internal mandate, there is an implication that, were he to win, he might introduce some changes to his Cabinet. That means


that every member of the Cabinet has had his or her authority undermined. Whatever issue a Cabinet Minister takes up, he or she will not be able to guarantee that other events will not ensue. The President of the Board of Trade and the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Education have all been mentioned as official candidates in the forthcoming campaign. Sonic people are speculating that the Prime Minister made his announcement today to divert attention from Labour's education policy statement. I am not sure whether that is true. Clarification could come later.
It is clear that discord has overtaken the Government. The Cabinet is disintegrating, as is the Conservative party, before our eyes. Our main concern, however, must be about the impact of the Prime Minister's announcement on the country. What will happen? Will we see a run on the pound? What will happen to the negotiations in Northern Ireland? As the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland set out in his unprecedented letter to The Times, there is a difficult situation. What will happen in respect of Bosnia? The difficulties in Bosnia surely require a Prime Minister and Ministers who can act with authority. We cannot—

Mr. Mackinlay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I left the Chamber a few minutes ago to telephone Her Majesty the Queen's assistant private secretary, Robin Janvrin, at Windsor. He said that unlike the occasion when Harold Wilson said that he would trigger an election for leadership of the Labour party, which resulted in Lord Callaghan, as he now is, becoming leader, there has been no statement from the palace. Mr. Janvrin cannot confirm or deny whether there has been consultation with or acquiescence by the head of state about the constitutional hiatus with which we are faced.
It is time that someone from the Government Benches—for example, the Leader of the House—clarified a perfectly proper constitutional point. I hope that you will not mind me pressing this matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We could find that the palace is placed in a position in which it is unnecessarily and unfairly embarrassed, as happened constitutionally in Australia in 1975, by people not following proper ground rules and not insisting that those who advise play by the constitutional rule book.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I suspect that the hon. Member knew that his point of order had nothing to do with the Chair. It had not.

Mrs. Taylor: I shall he brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak.
We should concentrate on the constitutional position. It was said earlier—

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) for interrupting her. I cannot but notice that the Government Whips are chattering. I am not complaining about that. Will you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, resist any attempt to force a closure? Several hon. Members wish to speak. The suspicion is growing on the Opposition Benches that Government Whips are trying to persuade the Chair that when my hon. Friend concludes

her speech and resumes her place, the closure will be moved and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will accept it. Will you assure us that that will not happen?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair cannot anticipate anything that any hon. Member does. That is one of the challenges of the job.

Mrs. Taylor: It was said earlier that the Queen does not need the advice of the House on matters of this sort. I take issue with that statement. The monarch needs to know who commands a majority in the House. Morality demands more. It requires a Prime Minister who commands a majority in the House and the support and confidence of the country. We need a Prime Minister in whom the House and the country can have confidence. We need a Prime Minister who is competent to govern the country, and that is clearly not the position at present. We need not an internal contest within the Conservative party, but a general election.

Several hon. Members: rose—

The Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household (Mr. Greg Knight): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Winnick: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have noticed that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is now in the Chamber. Are we to take it that we shall have a statement from him about whether he will contest the leadership?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House long enough to know that the Chair has no control over who makes statements on the Government Benches.

The House having divided: Ayes 149, Noes 51.

Division No. 173]
[6.54 pm


AYES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Coe, Sebastian


Amess, David
Colvin, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Congdon, David


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Conway, Derek


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Ashby, David
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Couchman, James


Baldry, Tony
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Booth, Hartley
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Boswell, Tim
Duncan, Alan


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Dunn, Bob


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Dykes, Hugh


Brandreth, Gyles
Elletson, Harold


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burns, Simon
Faber, David


Burt, Alistair
Fabricant, Michael


Butcher, John
Forman, Nigel


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Chapman, Sydney
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Clappison, James
Freeman, Rt Hon Roger


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
French, Douglas






Gallie, Phil
Norris, Steve


Gardiner, Sir George
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Garnier, Edward
Pickles, Eric


Gillan, Cheryl
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Powell, William (Corby)


Gorst, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Riddick, Graham


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Robathan, Andrew


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hawksley, Warren
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hendry, Charles
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Horam, John
Sims, Roger


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Spencer, Sir Derek


Jack, Michael
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Jenkin, Bernard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jessel, Toby
Spink, Dr Robert


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard


Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Steen, Anthony


Knapman, Roger
Stern, Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Streeter, Gary


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sweeney, Walter


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Legg, Barry
Thomason, Roy


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Lidington, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Luff, Peter
Tredinnick, David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Trend, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Twinn, Dr Ian


MacKay, Andrew
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Waller, Gary


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Maitland, Lady Olga
Watts, John


Malone, Gerald
Wells, Bowen


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Whitney, Ray


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Whittingdale, John


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Wilkinson, John


Merchant, Piers
Willetts, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Yeo, Tim


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Hutton, John


Allen, Graham
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Barnes, Harry
Macdonald, Calum


Battle, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bayley, Hugh
Madden, Max


Bell, Stuart
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Boateng, Paul
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Corbett, Robin
Morley, Elliot


Corbyn, Jeremy
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Mullin, Chris


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Murphy, Paul


Dewar, Donald
O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)


Dowd, Jim
O'Hara, Edward


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Foster, Don (Bath)
Pike, Peter L


George, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Godman, Dr Norman A
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Grocott, Bruce
Smyth, The Reverend Martin


Hoon, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive





Spearing, Nigel
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Trimble, David



Vaz, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Wallace, James
Ms Estelle Morris and


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. John Austin-Walker.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question, That the debate be now adjourned, put accordingly and negatived.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 151, Noes 21.

Division No. 174]
[7.07 pm


AYES


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Gardiner, Sir George


Amess, David
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Arbuthnot, James
Garnier, Edward


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gillan, Cheryl


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Ashby, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Gorst, Sir John


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Baldry, Tony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bates, Michael
Hague, William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Booth, Hartley
Hawksley, Warren


Boswell, Tim
Hendry, Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Bowden, Sir Andrew
Horam, John


Brandreth, Gyles
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hunter, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Jack, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Jenkin, Bernard


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Jessel, Toby


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)


Carttiss, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Clappison, James
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Coe, Sebastian
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Colvin, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Congdon, David
Legg, Barry


Conway, Derek
Leigh, Edward


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lidington, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Luff, Peter


Couchman, James
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
MacKay, Andrew


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Davis, David (Boothferry)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Maitland, Lady Olga


Duncan, Alan
Malone, Gerald


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dykes, Hugh
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Elletson, Harold
Merchant, Piers


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Faber, David
Neubert, Sir Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Fishburn, Dudley
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Forman, Nigel
Norris, Steve


Forth, Eric
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Foster, Don (Bath)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Pickles, Eric


Freeman, Rt Hon Roger
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


French, Douglas
Rendel, David


Gallie, Phil
Renton, Rt Hon Tim






Robathan, Andrew
Temple-Morns, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Thomason, Roy


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tredinnick, David



Trend, Michael


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, David (Dover)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wallace, James


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waterson, Nigel



Watts, John


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Whitney, Ray


Spink, Dr Robert
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Wilkinson, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Willetts, David


Steen, Anthony
Yeo, Tim


Stern, Michael



Streeter, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sweeney, Walter
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Dr. Liam Fox.


NOES


Barnes, Harry
Mackinlay, Andrew


Bayley, Hugh
McWilliam, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Madden, Max


Cox, Tom
Pike, Peter L


George, Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Godman, Dr Norman A
Soley, Clive


Gordon, Mildred
Spearing, Nigel


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wareing, Robert N


Hutton, John
Winnick, David


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Tellers for the Noes:


Livingstone, Ken
Mr. Chris Mullin and


Macdonald. Calum
Mr. John Austin-Walker.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

PETITION

Braley House, Worcester

Mr. Peter Luff: I suspect that such ripples as I may have been able to cause on the political waters have been rather overwhelmed by boulders dropped into them elsewhere. Nevertheless, it is my great privilege to present a petition from 1,671 residents and tradesmen in north Worcester concerning Braley house, an approved bail and probation hostel situated at 89 Ombersley road, Worcester.
The petitioners consider the siting of the hostel inappropriate, accommodating as it does many high-risk persistent offenders in a residential neighbourhood, and are deeply concerned about the consequences, believing that the siting of the hostel will lead to an increase in crime rates in their area.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons instruct the Hereford and Worcester Probation Service to move or close the above named hostel.
To lie upon the Table.

Digital Television

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bates.]

Mr. Graham Allen: I suspect that today may be remembered as the day that the Prime Minister resigned the leadership of the Conservative party, but there is a footnote—an Adjournment debate—and that will be an important footnote to many people who are concerned about the future of the media and the industries related to them. Indeed, it may bring about an even greater revolution than the one made possible by the resignation of a Prime Minister from the leadership of his party. Whatever the problems of the Conservative party, there is no question that, in the long term, we must deal with some serious problems in respect of television's future, and one of the major changes that will affect television in this country and throughout the world is the advent of digital technology.
I am pleased to call this debate on digital technology and digital television. It is regrettable that the Government have not taken the chance to arrange a full day's debate on that important topic in the House. In many ways, that shows the irrelevance of this place. Even today, the Prime Minister made an announcement outside this Chamber, holding a press conference before talking to the legislature. That underlines the weakness of the legislature.
A Government White Paper on digital television has been outstanding for some considerable time—indeed, it has been so throughout the entire tenure of the Secretary of State for National Heritage. I hope that he will clearly indicate a date on which the Government will finally publish that White Paper so that, not only we in the House, but people who keenly await that announcement can plan for the future. Sadly, the continuing uncertainty, which seems a characteristic of the Department of National Heritage and of the Secretary of State, must stop so that people can plan, invest, look to the future and undertake this tremendous revolutionary media project of changing our television from an analogue system to a digital system.
I hope that the Secretary of State will, in the near future, make up his mind and resolve the problems that I understand he has with the Department of Trade and Industry, long before he either moves up or perhaps even out of the Cabinet, depending on whether the Prime Minister has made another blunder or a correct decision.
There are immense implications for all of us—not only those involved in television industries, but consumers or viewers of the product. Immense potential exists in the changeover to digital transmission. I want also to discuss what an incoming Labour Government need to do to develop the right policy framework to harness the benefits of digital television for the many and not merely the few. I call again on the Secretary of State. If he does not do this job, clearly it will be done by an incoming Labour Government, but I hope that he will publish the White Paper before the summer recess and allocate time so that the important issues involved can be debated by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Stephen Timms: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is an extremely urgent matter


because, if there is not a Government initiative, a real danger exists that, for example, the satellite broadcasters might go ahead in the absence of a Government framework, steal a march, and determine the future direction of broadcasting in this country without any steer from Her Majesty's Government? Does he agree that that would be deeply regrettable and adds to his case for the need for urgency on the Government's part?

Mr. Allen: I hope that satellite, terrestrial and cable broadcasters will all take advantage of the new technology. I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. It is for the Government now to act as a co-ordinator of the action necessary to ensure that satellite, cable and terrestrial television programme producers can get their act together with a degree of certainty. The investment levels that are required to make this experiment a success and for it to stick are high. I suspect that even British Sky Broadcasting, with the backing that it enjoys, the British Broadcasting Corporation or the cable companies in this country would be loth to go ahead without some clarification from the Government.
At present, everyone is in the starting blocks. As my hon. Friend points out, we have a lead and an expertise in this sector which is being dissipated by the Government and particularly byn the Department of National Heritage's delay in publishing the White Paper. I hope that it publishes it without further delay for the benefit of everyone; we will then make the points made eloquently by my hon. Friend.
We all need to try—I shall try to follow my own edict—to use as few jargon words as possible. It is easy to talk about conditional access and common interfaces, and to use all the rest of the jargon—such as terrestrial and all the junk—which surrounds much of the debate. I guess that digital could be summed up at its simplest in this way: that which currently delivers one channel can be used—the same space can be used—to deliver many channels.
The beauty of the technology is that it can compress a signal, so where one currently receives one channel, one can use the same space to receive five, six, seven, eight, nine or 10 channels—who knows how many channels we will ultimately receive; it depends on how the technology progresses. Put at its simplest, that means that digital television, handled properly and with the right promotion by Government, can benefit both the consumer and producer of television in this country, Europe and throughout the world.
Provided that we ensure that such channels are not controlled by a single monopoly producer, digital will extend customer choice by enabling terrestrial, cable and satellite systems to offer many more channels than they can currently offer. It will also offer multimedia services and allow telecommunications, broadcasting and information services to be delivered to all sorts of consumers and industry. I hope that, as we gear the technology, it will be available at a reduced cost so that extra costs do not fall directly on the consumer, but are reduced as a product of the technology.
The technology exists. What is missing is some leadership from the Government. That can be covered by two main points. First, they should set clear ground rules for investment in digital technology and, secondly, they should announce a clear transparent policy on competition issues, so that people feel that they will be given a fair

crack of the whip when they invest in the multi-million pound operation that is modern-day programming for television. If the Government do not show commitment to that project, if the White Paper staggers out before the recess—I understand that even 13 July may be a favoured date—and if the White Paper is equivocal and unclear, that will send exactly the wrong signals to the rest of the industry. Who will invest millions of pounds if that is the climate in which investment may take place and disappear.

Mr. Timms: Given that, as my hon. Friend said, digital technology will be adopted by the cable, satellite and terrestrial broadcasters, how optimistic is he that they will all introduce the same standard in bringing that technology into use, or is there a danger that different players in the broadcasting industry might adopt different standards and cause considerable damage as a result?

Mr. Allen: The technical work on introducing similar standards has been done domestically and at European level. It has been a slow and protracted process, but the technical standards are there. What my hon. Friend may regard as a more serious issue—and here I must lapse into jargon—is the conditional access problem about which I shall talk later. I hope that I will be able to explain my jargon more clearly.
There is no doubt that the British economy will benefit immensely if national manufacturers of digital technology and digital service providers can build upon the comparative advantage that they now have and exploit that in the world marketplace.
Television and film are not exclusively the province of Hollywood. There is still a thriving, capable and respected television industry in Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom. It is a phenomenal asset for this country and we need to ensure that the advantage that it enjoys currently is enhanced by the quick and efficient use of digital technology. Jobs, training, crafts and skills will all be buttressed by early and decisive Government action. More delay will mean that we will not maximise the economic and social opportunities offered by digital technology.
There are tremendous opportunities. This is not merely for boffins pressing buttons in a television control room. Real advantages could be gained by ordinary people in the community and by the average television viewer. There are opportunities for expanding the variety of television offered nationally and locally. There are opportunities for high-quality television, not necessarily more of the same. Many people complain about the plethora of channels in certain sectors now. There are opportunities for introducing local channels to serve towns and cities.
One of the darkest blots on the Government's record on broadcasting is that they have consistently failed to encourage local television channels which could deliver local services, local information, training and education on a basis that is relevant to London, Nottingham or Glasgow, or many of the towns and cities throughout the country.
There are opportunities for providing specialist multi-media services. That is jargon for things such as a specialist channel for disabled people, for shoppers or for local council tax payers dealing with local services and the value for money that they receive. There are opportunities for all of us to access with ease the treasure house of the Internet so that we do not need a PhD in


physics, chemistry or computer science to operate the machinery to discover many of the wonders as well as many of the dark sides of the Internet.
There are opportunities for offering exciting new education packages, not just for schools but for homes, so that everyone could benefit from, for example, a specialist geography channel or a language channel. Hopefully, that will be done ultimately on an interactive basis. It would help those who are housebound, not necessarily the elderly or the disabled but young people trapped at home because they are involved in child care or have family commitments. It could help to provide a way out of the home through some form of PCTV which is easily accessible and fun to use.
There are tremendous opportunities to liberate people rather than to enslave them and tie them to a computer screen, which is how technology is often seen. It could allow access to other people and draw one out of the home and into the community through interaction with real human beings.
There are fantastic opportunities and one that is particularly dear to me is access to public information. In this instance, I do not mean the work that has been done by Newham council, among others, which has been instrumental in promoting street access. I am talking about feedback, possibly into public policy; helping to empower citizens so that they feel part of the democratic process. That is becoming ever more essential given the way that the House was treated today. The way in which we treat our electorate is equally contemptible. The Government are almost free to do what they wish with no redress for the House or the electorate. We are facing yet another possible change of Prime Minister without the electorate being involved, which is what happened when Baroness Thatcher was turfed out by her party.
We can do better than that and our politics needs us to do better than that for our country. One of the ways of achieving that is to involve people and make them feel that democracy is theirs. We must let everybody have access to the way in which this place works—or does not work. We should let everyone understand how local authorities work and why we need taxation and public spending. We should let them know what options are available and whether good value for money can be delivered. There are many things in just that one area of democracy which could be fed back to involve citizens in the democratic process.
Those are the ideals and the tremendous opportunities. It is the responsibility of Parliament and the Government to legislate to protect and promote those ideals. All that is lacking now is some Government imagination, drive and priorities. In lieu of the long-outstanding White Paper, which has still not been delivered by the Department of National Heritage and its Secretary of State, I should like to tell the House what will be the priorities of a Labour Government, when we take office sooner rather than later.
First, is our commitment to open and fair access. No one should monopolise either the digital highway or the gateways to it. The regulation of access through those gateways is essential for safeguarding fair and free competition in the public interest. Without effective regulation, the owners of those conditional access systems—the gateways into people's homes—which have programming interests of their own, could have the power

to restrict access to rival broadcasters and to dominate the digital revolution. We must avoid a situation like that which occurred at TV Asia where one satellite gatekeeper had BBC World thrown off the service because the Chinese Government did not approve of its coverage of news items.
It is imperative that the Government develop a new regulatory approach for the digital age. Any cable company will agree that it does not need favours. Many are happy to see the end of the asymmetry rule now that they have had a full seven years to establish themselves. They do not want any more favours from the Government. They want fairness; above all they want fairness in competition policy and competition rules. Many are not in a position to complain too loudly because their supplier may use their market position against the complainant.
The Government need to sort out competition policy and competition rules now. If they do not do so, the digital revolution could he strangled at birth. That is one central area in which a new regulatory approach must be made clear.
The Independent Television Commission proposes something different: licensing the gatekeepers. Its system could ensure that abuses are corrected far more quickly than through the current protracted procedures of the Office of Telecommunications, the Office of Fair Trading and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. We need to have a shorter and sharper response when abuses are seen to take place or when allegations of abuse are made. The ITC's proposition deserves a great deal of thought by the Secretary of State. I hope that he will consider it, even if he publishes his White Paper in the very near future.
Alternatively, Andrew Neil, the gatekeeper turned poacher, if I may use that expression, suggests that we have the brains collectively to devise a single decoder capable of unscrambling all services and, indeed, guaranteeing access to them. So the technological revolution does not end merely with digital technology and digital TV. There may well be more to come. The Labour party needs to make it clear that those who have built systems by their own efforts have a right to their system's security, to a fair return on their enormous investment and to the Government—effectively— defending their interests at national and European level.
The real issue however is one of vertical integration and the lack of any effective competition policy in the United Kingdom. Last week, the European Parliament amended the draft EC directive on the use of standards for the transmission of signals to ensure that the owners of proprietary technology cannot discriminate against other broadcasters who want to offer services. How did the Conservatives respond? Instead of working constructively with our European partners, and alone among all the European Governments, they tried—and are trying—to block that proposal. Labour members will ensure in government that there is a national and European framework providing security for investors financing the digital infrastructure. In addition, we will encourage the diversity of high-quality domestic broadcast services which will drive the transition to digital.
The right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), in guiding the Broadcasting Bill through the House in 1990, made it very clear that when people are pioneering technology they deserve protection and advantage. There is no other way in which technology can move forward in the modern age, given the size of


companies. We need to examine—the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt that it was appropriate in 1990—whether the stage of pioneering and innovation has passed and whether a more appropriate and normal competition framework ought to exist for broadcasters, be they satellite, terrestrial or cable. I leave with the Secretary of State the thought that—perhaps—that embryonic phase has gone and the growing and fully fledged children of the past media revolution need to be treated as adults along with every other player.
The second priority will be to ease the change to all digital terrestrial broadcasting. At the moment everyone at home has an analogue television. At some point in the future everyone at home will have a digital TV. Of course, digital capacity needs to be set aside for existing broadcasters to ensure that their expertise continues to service the needs of nation. Their co-operation will be vital in ensuring that the digital transition takes place. We also need to ensure that new digital capacity is available for new services, to encourage creativity, innovation and the regeneration of the media industry, so that it can not only service domestic consumers but thrive in the competitive world.
The uncertainty which has characterised Conservative policy and the Department of National Heritage, will be replaced. If policy is not made clear in the White Paper and in the subsequent legislation, it will be made clear by Labour's clarity and the promotion of digitalisation. We need some dates out of the Secretary of State—not merely for those of us in the House, but for those outside too—so that planning and investment can be undertaken in an era of certainty.
The third priority that we need to underline for an incoming Labour Government is that it is essential to galvanise support in the UK media industry and to support common platforms and objectives as we move toward a digital future. The potential for the UK—I repeat—as a pioneer in the digital age must no longer be squandered by the Department of National Heritage and by the Secretary of State because of the lack of foresight and enthusiasm, or teamwork with the DTI.
The threat from global competitors cannot be dumped behind protectionism. It must be tackled by the UK media industry with innovation, new services and broadcasting initiatives. The UK's indigenous broadcasting industry has to meet that challenge. Whingeing about BSkyB all the time must be replaced by clear proposals, clear initiatives and, indeed, partnerships in the domestic TV and telephony companies. It is time that the BBC, ITV and BT got their acts together on the digital highway and got their content packages together, rather than merely being content to moan about others who are taking advantage of the developments.
We must also consider seriously the issue of spectrum allocation. The spectrum is a very valuable resource. Labour will ensure that the fiasco of bidding for Channel 3 and Channel 5 licences is not repeated. Quality in a modern media industry and environment must be put ahead of price and not vice versa. The future allocation of digital terrestrial channels—those which are not used for simulcast or incentive channels to involve existing broadcasters—should be available on the basis of bidders paying above a minimum price, which could be set by the ITC. Licences should be allocated thereafter on quality and nature of content only. That is preferable to the channels going to the highest bidder followed by a discussion about quality. Let us seek to do it the other way round.
If a floor is met, a bid may be allowed, but it should then be assessed entirely on content and quality. That will shift the emphasis on to programmes and put the onus on bidders to detail quality and diversity, including binding commitments to the development of regional and local programming. Let us take this process seriously, rather than repeat the farce of schoolboys pretending to put in bids that many people realised were ridiculously low. I refer to some of the bids for the Channel 3 licence—although some bids were clearly too high—and the fiasco of the bidding for channel 5 some weeks ago.
The opportunities are truly awesome in the digital age and the free rides are definitely over. Labour will devise a coherent regulatory framework which will respond flexibly to the challenges inherent in the transition to digital television.
History, unfortunately, will judge that this Government have consistently failed to encourage local television, especially through the cable era. Despite superb work done locally by individual companies—I think of Associated Newspapers and Channel 1, MGM with Live TV, Select TV and Videotron—they have received minimal encouragement from the Government. The big network players—the BBC and the independent television companies—should see local television as an opportunity and not as a threat to their existence. We will explore ways in which to empower the ITC to ensure a strong, local element in a modern, diverse and democratic media. We will ensure that the digital revolution can spawn many local channels. That, again, will be a suitable complement to Labour's devolution of power to the localities, regions and nations of the United Kingdom.
Sadly, this Government's broadcasting policy has meant that television has been degraded. The words "the media industry" have become synonymous with the petty, risk-free rip-off rather than with dynamic entrepreneurialism. We need the latter, both from Government and the media sector, if we are to reap the social benefits of the digital wonder. Missed opportunities on cross-media ownership and cable regulation, the delay in privacy proposals and the delay in the White Paper on digital television comprise a very poor record for the Government.
It is time to have done with this tired and uninterested Government and their tired and uninterested Secretary of State for National Heritage. I caught him in the middle of a yawn. Perhaps he should give way now. If he is not interested—he clearly is not—perhaps he should give way now to a Government—and a party—who certainly are.

The Secretary of State for National Heritage (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I was interested in the timing of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) in proposing this debate. I had assumed that, when raising the subject of digital television a matter of weeks before the Government, as is known, are to produce their own proposals on digital television, the hon. Gentleman would come to the House with a clear set of detailed proposals. He is, after all, an Opposition spokesman on the subject. I thought that he would set out clearly to the House what the Opposition think the Government should be doing about the various issues that we face when dealing with the introduction of digital television.
I had intended to apologise to the House in my introduction by saying that although the hon. Gentleman had set out a detailed blueprint which clearly explained how he felt that the questions about digital television should he answered, I would have to crave the indulgence and understanding of the House for my inability to respond in detail given that the Government were known to be in the final stages of considering their policy on the matter. I thought that I should have to ask the House to wait a few weeks before I could respond in the detail that the hon. Gentleman used when presenting his proposals, but it has to be said that that element of my speech is redundant because the hon. Gentleman did not present any details about what the Opposition propose to do about digital television. Indeed, he offered the House only the inanities and clichés that I can offer the House, given that I cannot yet talk about a completed policy.
The hon. Gentleman's timing is interesting. He initiated the debate to call the Government to account for not having produced a policy—which the Government have said they are about to produce—and threw away an opportunity, which was wide open and was of his creation, to say what his policy is for dealing with the subject.

Mr. Allen: rose—

Mr. Dorrell: I give way in keen anticipation that the hon. Gentleman might be about to fill the gap.

Mr. Allen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon into his speech. The difference between my inanities and his is that mine come from a Back Bencher and his come from the Secretary of State for National Heritage.

Mr. Dorrell: My inanities come from a Minister who is known to the whole world to be in the final stages of considering policy on the matter. I do not think that anyone else in the world—perhaps the hon. Gentleman expects this—including all hon. Members, would expect a Minister called to a debate on the initiative of a single hon. Member, on the Adjournment, to use the occasion to announce the Government's policy. Indeed, if I were to do that, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the shadow Secretary of State for National Heritage, not to mention the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), the Chairman of the Select Committee on National Heritage, and all hon. Members who are interested in the subject would properly take me to task for having announced the Government's policy in an underhand way to a deserted House late on a Thursday night. That does not seem to be a sensible way in which to proceed. I propose to confine myself to the level of detail that the hon. Gentleman offered the House.

Mr. Allen: The right hon. Gentleman has two hours.

Mr. Dorrell: I might not be able to respond in detail on our policy on digital television but, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, I have two hours. I do not propose, any more than the hon. Gentleman did, to take up all that time. I propose to confine myself to the level of detail that he gave.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the opportunities of digital. The introduction of digital technology allows us the opportunity to broaden the

choice available to viewers and to give a broader range of television services, both broadcasting and information services, to viewers. It allows us to exploit the opportunities of new technology. That is indisputable and it is a simple proposition which will, I am sure, underlie the detailed policy proposals with which the Opposition will come forward in the fullness of time and which will underlie the Government's detailed proposals.
Digital technology allows us to offer not only a broader range of choice to viewers but, in some important respects, quality enhancement. Wide-screen television, for example, will be made possible by the technology of digital. That is one of the opportunities that we see when we look forward to a digital broadcasting world. There will be more choice for viewers and a wider range of enhanced, technical quality services. That is all made possible by this new technology. The hon. Gentleman is right to stress those opportunities to the House.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to stress the opportunity that digital technology offers in terms of business opportunities. There are business opportunities for hardware producers and for the producers of receiving sets and transmission equipment. There are opportunities for the hardware exploitation of digital technology and there are business opportunities for programme makers. The business opportunities for hardware makers build on a considerable British success story in recent years. In 1994, we manufactured 5 million receivers—more than the total of France and Germany combined.
I just cast my mind back to the dying days of the previous Labour Government. No Conservative spokesman would have dared to claim that, under a Conservative Government, the television industry would be transformed into one that produced twice as many sets as were produced in France and Germany and that a Conservative Government would, at the same time, turn a balance of payments deficit in such trade into a balance of payments surplus of £400 million, because that claim would have been so far removed from the world that we inherited. During the past 16 years, we have transformed this industrial sector. The transformation is a success story on which we plan to build in the digital world which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, presents important business opportunities to us.

Mr. Allen: It has crossed my mind that, in the dark days of the previous Labour Government, we had a British television industry. That was before two thirds of British manufacturing industry was eliminated during the dark years of Thatcherism and Majorism.

Mr. Dorrell: That observation does not correspond with any of the facts that anyone who works in the industry would recognise. The industry has been transformed, as have many other industries, by the fact that Britain is now what Mr. Delors used to call a paradise for Japanese investment. We have turned the country into one that welcomes foreign investment and sees the opportunities presented by foreign technology and foreign companies that will employ British people and create wealth and jobs here. That is how the television and other industries have been transformed, and it is a success story on which we have every intention of building.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the introduction of digital technology creates more opportunities for programme makers to make the programmes that will


provide consumer choice. He is right to draw attention to that as a consequence of the introduction of digital technology.
We must ensure that, as the range of choice for viewers broadens, we also have in Britain the best environment that we can create and that the more channels there are, the more there is an environment here in which programme makers can make programmes to fill up the greater number of channels available in the digital world. That is the shared analysis of what the technology makes possible. The hon. Gentleman put forward that view, and he was right; the Government share it. In our own time, a few weeks from now, we shall make detailed proposals about how we intend to ensure that the opportunities are taken.
It is not true to say that the White Paper has been delayed. Ever since I became Secretary of State I have said that the first priority in dealing with the broadcasting sector and the more general media sector was ownership in the existing media world. If I had published a White Paper on digital technology without having dealt with media ownership first, people would have found it difficult to follow.
Indeed, it would have been difficult to write a White Paper without setting it in the context of a broader media ownership policy. There has never been any secret about that. We made our proposals on media ownership just before the spring recess, and I made it clear then that that was volume one, as it were, and that volume two, on the exploitation of digital technology, would follow in a few weeks' time. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that remains the position.

Mr. Allen: Will the Secretary of State talk specifically about the problems connected with competition policy? I understand that he has been talking to the Department of Trade and Industry. The competition framework is causing concern, especially to the cable companies, in relation to the programmes that they are allowed to broadcast over their systems. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that, when the White Paper is published, it will appear with the full consent of the DTI and refer to the way in which competition policy will be used in the media industries and in the digital future?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman asked me two straight questions, and the answer to both is yes. The White Paper will be agreed with the DTI because it will be a Government paper. Of course it will deal with the competition issues related to conditional access and to the rest of the digital sector, because to do so is part of the delivery of a policy for that sector.
As I have made clear to the House, I shall not offer a detailed answer to the hon. Gentleman's questions about conditional access, any more than I shall to the other questions that he posed, partly because he himself did not offer a detailed blueprint. He simply said that those were important issues. Of course he is right, and when the Government make our proposals we shall reveal the importance that we attach to clear answers to those questions.
Our White Paper will set out clear proposals to ensure that we have in Britain an environment conducive to the continued expansion of the hardware sector. We shall set out clearly the terms for licence allocation in the digital television sector and the terms for ownership regulation in that sector. It will cover those issues because that will be necessary if we are to realise the opportunities that digital television offers.

Mr. Timms: I hope that the Secretary of State will be able to comment in advance of the White Paper on one related, but more specific, point. Can he tell the House what the Government's view is on the initiatives to produce a common European standard for the digital interface for broadcasting? Do they support that initiative? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in some parts of the United Kingdom broadcasting industry, there is concern that proprietary standards might be introduced. That would be damaging in terms of the competition policy that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned. What is the Government's attitude towards the introduction of a common European standard?

Mr. Dorrell: That is indeed an issue that is under discussion in the institutions in Brussels. Our position at the various stages of those discussions has been made clear. In so far as the matter relates to the exploitation of digital television technology from the point of view of producers and consumers, especially consumers, we shall cover it when we publish the White Paper.
However, I shall not be drawn now into detailed answers to the questions that we shall deal with then. If I answered half a question now, another half question would be raised, and we would soon find ourselves in a country in which some of the questions, but not all of them, had already been asked and answered. All the questions cannot be answered now—if they had been, we would already have published our White Paper.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Eight o'clock.